Allahabad High Court
NAUSHADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable and disposed of it, directing compliance with Supreme Court directions in the investigation.
Summary
Naushad filed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 482 in a criminal case (Crime No.183 of 2026) alleging offences under Sections 305 and 331(4) of the BNSS, fearing arrest. The State opposed, arguing the application was not maintainable because the alleged offences did not carry a punishment exceeding seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS along with Supreme Court precedents already protected the applicant. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut this objection. The Court, after considering the facts, dismissed the anticipatory bail application and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam, and Satender Kumar Antil while conducting the investigation. The application was therefore disposed of without granting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and existing Supreme Court judgments provide sufficient protection, obviating the need for anticipatory bail
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in the present circumstances
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 305, 331(4), 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 35(3) BNSS
- maintainability
- investigation directions
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9984 of 2026
Naushad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranjal Chaudhari, Rishab Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, 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.183 of 2026, under Sections 305, 331(4)
BNS, Police Station-Saroorpur, District-Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge
him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the
abovementioned 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. 2014 (8)
SCC 273, Mohd. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. (2023) 8
SCC 63 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation 2026 INSC 115 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. 9984 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), Mohd. Asfak
Alam (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) while conducting the
investigation of the aforesaid case.
6. The application stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 24, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…