Allahabad High Court
VIJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where the applicant, already on regular bail, has absconded and warrants under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC have been issued.
Summary
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in a case filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, fearing arrest. The State opposed, noting the applicant was already on regular bail but had absconded since 2017, leading to non‑bailable warrants under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC. The court held that the preliminary objection was sustainable and that anticipatory bail could not be granted when the applicant had fled while on bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed, but the court granted a four‑week interim protection from coercive action, allowing the applicant to approach the concerned court for regular bail or cancellation of warrants. The State had no objection to this interim relief, and the applicant’s medical condition was noted but did not affect the dismissal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the applicant is already on regular bail and has absconded, with non‑bailable warrants issued under the CrPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) preclude the grant of anticipatory bail in the present circumstances.
- Whether interim relief can be granted despite dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82, 83
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 2, 3
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act
- absconding
- non-bailable warrant
- interim relief
- medical condition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9661 of 2026
Vijay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sikandar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and 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. 1027 of 2001, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station – Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr, with a prayer to enlarge
him on anticipatory bail, as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the
aforesaid case.
3. Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection stating that the
applicant was already on regular bail in the present case and had
absconded since 2017. The applicant had moved an application under
Section 528 BNSS No. 33392 of 2026, which was disposed of by this
Court with the direction that the bail application of the applicant shall be
decided keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court
vide order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, as such this anticipatory bail application
is not maintainable.
4. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that despite the
direction of this Court, as the present case is a case which is punishable
with imprisonment up to ten years and is a case triable by the Special
Court with special provisions for bail, the applicant apprehends his arrest
and may be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 9661 of 2026
2
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
6. The preliminary objection raised by the Learned A.G.A. is sustainable.
Once the applicant, who was on regular bail has absconded, and non-
bailable warrants and coercive processes under Sections 82 and 83
Cr.P.C. are stated to have been issued against the applicant, no case for
grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The applicant may move an
appropriate application before the concerned Court for seeking bail or
cancellation of warrants or any other application, as advised, and no
further direction is required to be given by this Court. The anticipatory
bail application is not maintainable.
7. The anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.
8. After the dismissal of the application, the Learned counsel for the
applicant states that the applicant is a heart patient who has also
undergone surgery and is aged about 58 years, and may be considered for
grant of interim relief to approach the concerned Court and move an
appropriate application, as advised.
9. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said prayer.
10. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, as also the fact that
the applicant is stated to be medically unfit, it is provided as an interim
measure that in case the applicant appears before the concerned Court
within four weeks from today and moves an appropriate application as
advised, the same may be considered and disposed of without being
influenced by any observation made by the Sessions Court while refusing
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
11. For a period of only four weeks from today, no coercive action may
be taken against the applicant.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 17, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…