Allahabad High Court
NABAIL/9944/2026 of ANIL AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 7 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9944 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No 259 of 2025, under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 110 of BNS, Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their 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 applicants do not apprehend their arrest as the offences that have been alleged against the applicants 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 applicants.
4. Upon being confronted with the objection raised by the learned A.G.A., the learned counsel for the applicants failed to satisfactorily meet the same.
5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
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.
October 8, 2026 A.P. Pandey NABAIL No. 9944 of 2026
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad