Allahabad High Court
SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is disposed of, with a direction to the investigating officer to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines.
Summary
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, fearing arrest in a case (Crime No. 212 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 351(3), 74, 76 and 333 of the BNSS. The State opposed, arguing that the offences do not attract a punishment exceeding seven years, that Section 35(3) of the BNSS already provides protection, and that Supreme Court judgments in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2024) and *Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand* (2023) safeguard the applicant’s interests. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut these objections. The Court, after considering the facts, held the anticipatory bail application not maintainable and disposed of it, directing the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court guidelines in the cited cases while conducting the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 is maintainable when the alleged offences do not carry 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, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 333, 351(3), 35(3), 74, 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- maintainability
- Supreme Court guidelines
- investigation
- Section 35(3) BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9789 of 2026
Sachin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Chandra, Ram Jee Saxena,
Rohit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 212 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 74, 76, 333
BNS, Police Station Bhopa, 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.
5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it
NABAIL No. 9789 of 2026
2
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…