Allahabad High Court
ISTKARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 CrPC by Mohd Wasim, who feared arrest in a criminal case (Crime No 158 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 110, 352, 351(2) and 117(2) of the BNSS. The State’s Additional Advocate General objected, arguing that the alleged offences did not carry a punishment exceeding seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS, together with Supreme Court precedents in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2024) and *Mohd Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand* (2023), already protected the applicant. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut the objection. The Court therefore disposed of the anticipatory bail petition, directing the investigating officer to follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases, and denied bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable when the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the Supreme Court judgments in *Arnesh Kumar* and *Mohd Asfak Alam* provide sufficient protection to the applicant, obviating the need for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar National Security Act — s. 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- maintainability
- BNSS
- Section 35(3)
- Supreme Court precedent
- investigation directions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9785 of 2026
Istkar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sandeep
Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mohd. Wasim, learned
counsel for the informant, who has filed his Vakalatnma, which is taken on
record, 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 158 of 2025, under Sections 110, 352, 351(2),
117(2) BNS, Police Station-Sikhera, District Muzaffarnagar, with a prayer to
enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehend his arrest in the
above-mentioned 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 passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar and Anr., 2024 (8) SCC 273 and Mohd. Asfak Alam vs.
State of Jharkhand and anr., (2023) 8 SCC 632 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.
NABAIL No. 9785 of 2026
2
5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the 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)
while conducting the investigation in the above-mentioned case.
6. The application stands disposed of.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 21, 2026
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…