Allahabad High Court
RAIS AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court declined the anticipatory bail application and directed the applicant to seek regular bail in the trial court, applying the Supreme Court’s Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.
Summary
Rais Ahmad filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 323, 420, 427, 447, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The Attorney General objected, arguing that the offences do not carry imprisonment exceeding seven years, a charge‑sheet has already been filed and there is no apprehension of arrest, making the anticipatory bail plea untenable. The applicant’s counsel sought permission to approach the trial court for regular bail, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Attorney General raised no objection to this request. The High Court directed that the applicant must appear before the trial court within four weeks and file a regular bail application, which shall be decided according to the Satender Kumar Antil precedent, without being influenced by any earlier rejection of anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years and a charge‑sheet has already been filed.
- Whether the applicant can be directed to seek regular bail in the pending trial court in lieu of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 420, 427, 447, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- Supreme Court precedent
- bail application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9633 of 2026
Rais Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bal Krishna, Neelam Pandey, Rajnish
Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. At the very outset, the Learned A.G.A. has raised an objection that the
offences alleged against the applicant are not punishable with
imprisonment exceeding seven years. It is further submitted that the
charge-sheet has been filed and there is no apprehension of arrest of the
applicant, therefore, the present application seeking anticipatory bail is
not maintainable.
2. After some arguments, the Learned counsel for the applicant prays that
he may be permitted to approach the concerned Court and apply for
regular bail, which may be directed to be decided in accordance with the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and
the subsequent orders passed by the Supreme Court in the above-
mentioned case.
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. 236 of 2023, under Sections 323, 420, 427, 447, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C.,
Police Station- Karely, District-Prayagraj, before the Court concerned
within a period of four weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail
application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in
NABAIL No. 9633 of 2026
2
accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender
Kumar Antil (supra), without being influenced by any observations
made by the concerned Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail
application of the applicant.
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands
disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 30, 2026
Sartaj
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…