Allahabad High Court
MANORMA 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
Manorma Sharma applied for anticipatory bail under the Criminal Procedure Code after a prior order denying bail under the SC/ST Act. The State's Additional Government Advocate argued that the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable because the correct remedy was an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, citing the earlier rejection and the decision in Kailash v. State of U.P. The applicant’s counsel agreed to dismiss the bail application if the appeal route was pursued. The High Court, agreeing with the State, granted the applicant liberty to file an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act and dismissed the anticipatory bail application as not pressed. The court ordered the return of the certified copy of the order to the applicant’s counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application under the Cr.P.C. is maintainable when a prior order under the SC/ST Act has been rejected.
- Whether the appropriate remedy is an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act rather than a fresh anticipatory bail petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- maintainability
- appeal
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9805 of 2026
Manorma 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
not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.
NABAIL No. 9805 of 2026
2
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…