Allahabad High Court
HARIDARSHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, directing compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines, and did not grant bail.
Summary
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 351(3) of the BNSS, 2023, fearing arrest in Crime No.196 of 2026. The State’s Additional Government Advocate objected, arguing that the alleged offences do not attract a punishment exceeding seven years and that the BNSS already provides protection under Section 35(3) together with Supreme Court pronouncements in Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam and Satender Kumar Antil. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut the objection. The High Court, after considering the facts, held that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable and ordered the investigating officer to conduct the investigation in accordance with the cited Supreme Court guidelines. Consequently, the application was disposed of without granting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences do not carry a punishment of more than seven years
- Whether the protection afforded by Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the Supreme Court judgments cited obviate the need for anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 316(2), 351(3), 35(3), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- BNSS
- Supreme Court guidelines
- investigation
- maintainability
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9433 of 2026
Haridarshan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant and the Learned A.G.A. for
the State.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.196 of 2026, under Sections 61(2), 316(2),
351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Budhana, District Muzaffar
Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.
3. At the very outset, the Learned A.G.A. has raised an objection
regarding the maintainability of the instant application by submitting that
the applicant does not apprehend his arrest as the offences that have been
alleged against the applicant do not entail in the event of a conviction, a
punishment of more than seven years. He further contends that
appropriate protection has been provided in the BNSS itself in the form of
Section 35(3) BNSS and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Arnesh
Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2014 (8) SCC 273, Mohd. Asfak
Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. (2023) 8 SCC 63 and Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 INSC 115 also
safeguard the interest of the applicant.
4. Upon being confronted with the objection raised by the Learned
A.G.A., the learned counsel for the applicant failed to satisfactorily meet
the same.
5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
NABAIL No. 9433 of 2026
2
case, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present application with a
direction to the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Mohd.
Asfak Alam (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) while
conducting the investigation in the above mentioned case.
6. This application is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 11, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…