Allahabad High Court
SAROJ SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to file an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
Summary
Saroj Sharma applied for anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. §§438/482 after an earlier order rejecting bail under the SC/ST Act. The State objected, arguing that the correct remedy was an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, citing the decision in Kailash v. State of U.P. The applicant’s counsel agreed to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and seek relief under the SC/ST Act. The Court, noting the procedural requirement, granted the applicant liberty to file an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) and dismissed the anticipatory bail application as not pressed. The order directed the return of certified copies of the case papers to the applicant’s counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application under Cr.P.C. §§438/482 is maintainable when the bail order has been rejected under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appropriate remedy is an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act rather than under the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- maintainability
- criminal procedure
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9793 of 2026
Saroj Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. None appeared on behalf of informant in revised call, however, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned
A.G.A. with regard to maintainability of the present anticipatory bail
application, stating that anticipatory bail application of the applicant has
been rejected vide order dated 05.08.2026 under SC/ST Act and in view
of judgment of this Court in the case of Kailash vs. State of U.P., 2022
(121) ACC 908, the appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act
would be maintainable. It is further contended that the order granting or
rejecting the anticipatory bail under the provisions of SC/ST Act, shall be
amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 14-
A(2) of the SC/ST Act and not under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of
B.N.S.S.
3. On being confronted the learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the present application be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a
criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act.
4. In the interest of justice and proper adjudication, the applicant is set at
liberty to file an appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST Act. He may
file an appeal under the SC/ST Act; if advised so.
5. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as
NABAIL No. 9793 of 2026
2
not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.
6. Office is directed to return certified copy of orders and other relevant
papers, to the learned counsel for the applicant after retaining photostat
copies of the same.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 21, 2026
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…