Allahabad High Court
RAJNESH @ ANURAG YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court disposed the anticipatory bail application, directing the applicant to seek regular bail within four weeks and staying any coercive action.
Summary
The applicant, Rajnesh @ Anurag Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC s.482 after a charge sheet was lodged. The Additional Government Advocate argued that the alleged offences do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years, so there is no fear of arrest. The applicant’s counsel requested permission to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The A.G. raised no objection to this approach. The High Court directed the applicant to appear in the pending trial (Cr. No. 384 of 2025) within four weeks, apply for bail per the Supreme Court precedent, and ordered that no coercive action be taken against him during that period. The anticipatory bail application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is warranted when the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether the applicant may be directed to seek regular bail instead of anticipatory bail.
- Whether a stay on coercive action is appropriate pending the regular bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- coercive action
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9439 of 2026
Rajnesh @ Anurag Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yogesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. The Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that a charge sheet has already
been filed against the applicant. He has raised an objection that the
offences that have been alleged against the applicant, do not entail a
punishment of more than seven years, in the event of a conviction.
Therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicant.
2. On such an objection being raised, the Learned counsel for the
applicant prays that the applicant may be permitted to appear before the
concerned Court and apply for regular bail, which may be directed to be
decided in accordance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and in the meantime their interest may be
protected.
3. The Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said prayer.
4. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, it is directed that in case the applicant appears in Case Crime
No.384 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 of the B.N.S.,
P.S. Patiyali, District Kasganj, before the Court concerned within a period
of four weeks from today and applies for bail, the same shall be
considered and disposed of, expeditiously, in accordance with direction
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra)
and the subsequent orders passed therein, without being influenced by any
NABAIL No. 9439 of 2026
2
observations made by the concerned Sessions Judge while rejecting the
anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
5. For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicant.
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands
disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 11, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…