Allahabad High Court
MOHD SHAKEELversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was disposed of, with the court directing the applicant to apply for regular bail within four weeks and staying any coercive action during that period.
Summary
Mohd Shakeel applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC after a charge sheet was filed. The learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the alleged offences did not carry a punishment exceeding seven years, so there was no fear of arrest. The applicant sought permission to appear before the trial court and apply for regular bail, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The court, agreeing to the applicant’s request, directed him to appear in the trial case (Crime No. 97 of 2026) within four weeks and to apply for bail under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 34 of the Indian Medical Council Act, with the bail matter to be decided per the Supreme Court precedent. It also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicant for four weeks and disposed of the anticipatory bail application.
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 can be imposed pending the regular bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Medical Council Act — s. 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- coercive action
- Supreme Court precedent
- Indian Medical Council Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9574 of 2026
Mohd Shakeel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kundan Mishra, Saurabh Kumar
Dubey, Saurabh Singh, Vishpa
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.97 of 2026, under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 34 of the
Indian Medical Council Act, P.S. Patwai, District Rampur, 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
NABAIL No. 9574 of 2026
2
Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and the subsequent orders passed therein,
without being influenced by any 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 23, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…