Subscribe

Latest › Allahabad High Court › Criminal › Criminal Procedure › 23 September 2026

Allahabad High Court Notable

Allahabad HC: anticipatory bail can be sought after chargesheet; Bharat Chaudhary prevails; bail extended till end of trial

Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Date of judgment
23 September 2026
Case
NABAIL/7094/2026
Parties
PAWAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Bench
YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
Outcome
Allowed

Summary

The Allahabad High Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even after the chargesheet has been submitted and the accused has been summoned to face trial, and has extended the applicant's anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, in an order marked A.F.R., preferred the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar over a later order of a bench of equal strength in Ram Pukar Yadav v. State of Bihar.

The applicant, Pawan Kumar, had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 7 January 2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10927 of 2025, but only till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193(3) BNSS. The chargesheet was then submitted and he was summoned. He filed a fresh application under Section 482 BNSS, NABAIL No. 7094 of 2026, contending that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after submission of the chargesheet. The Additional Advocate General argued at the outset that the application was not maintainable because the applicant no longer had any apprehension of arrest. The order was reserved on 20 July 2026 and delivered on 23 September 2026.

The question before the court

What each side argued

The court's decision

The Court reproduced Section 482 BNSS and relied on Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623 to hold that arrest is not to be read narrowly. A person who surrenders before a Magistrate or Sessions Court to seek regular bail submits to custody, so apprehension of arrest covers arrest even on surrender and is not limited to arrest by the police. It also noted that Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 settled that anticipatory bail cannot be of limited duration and need not end on the filing of the chargesheet.

On precedent, the Court cited State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma (2016) 15 SCC 289 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 for the rule that a decision of the Supreme Court by a bench of equal strength binds a later bench, which can depart only by a reference to a larger bench. Ram Pukar Yadav is of equal bench strength with Bharat Chaudhary but is later in time, so the earlier judgment holds the field. The application was therefore maintainable.

On merits, the Court noted that the chargesheet had been submitted, the applicant had been summoned, no investigation remained and his custodial interrogation was not required. The prosecution had given no reason why he should not have anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

The application was allowed. The applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial on the same terms and conditions on which it was granted on 7 January 2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10927 of 2025.

Precedents referred to

Provisions referred to

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Anticipatory BailCriminal ProcedurePrecedentBnss

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Anticipatory Bail

Telangana HC: anticipatory bail refused to accused who allegedly struck victim's head with iron rod, granted to two co-accused

The question: Should anticipatory bail be granted to all three accused in an assault arising from a land dispute?

The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition for anticipatory bail in a land-dispute assault case, refusing it to the accused who allegedly struck the victim on the head with an iron rod and granting it to two co-accused whose custody was not shown to be necessary. Justice N. Tukaramji held that an anticipatory bail petition is not a mini-trial and that parity cannot be applied mechanically merely because the accused are implicated in the same occurrence. The petitioners, Arikala Kumar and two others, are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 204 of 2026 of Havelighanpur Police Station, Medak District, for offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS. According to the prosecution, on 28 August 2026 at about 8 PM, against the backdrop of a land dispute, they wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant's father on his motorcycle and abused him. Accused No. 1 allegedly hit him on the head with an iron rod and accused No. 2 beat him with a stick, causing bleeding injuries. When the mother intervened, accused No. 1 allegedly hit her with the same rod and accused No. 2 also beat her.

Partly allowed CRLP/14306/2026
Karnataka High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Criminal Procedure

Karnataka HC lays down procedure for a Magistrate who receives a police ‘B’ report in a private complaint; summons quashed

The question: Can the petitioner be prosecuted as Managing Director when the company has not been arraigned as an accused?

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Magistrate's orders rejecting a police ‘B’ report and issuing process against the petitioner, accused No. 4, in a private complaint alleging that software was copied and cheating committed, and has set out the procedure a Magistrate should follow when a ‘B’ report is filed after a reference under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Justice H.P. Sandesh held that, without arraigning the company, there could be no criminal prosecution of the petitioner, who was described as its Managing Director. He also found that the Magistrate had rejected the ‘B’ report and issued summons without considering the protest memo, the sworn statements and the documents together. The Registrar General was directed to send the order to all Magistrates and Judges dealing with private complaints and to the Director of the Karnataka Judicial Academy. The complainant, owner of a company, alleged that it had developed and patented a software called Kaleido and, in 2014, gave it on trial to the Pearson company, which copied and marketed it. On a complaint dated 30 May 2015, police registered Crime No. 176/2015 under Section 420 IPC and, on a requisition to the Magistrate, added Sections 380, 406, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, then filed a ‘B’ report. The complainant filed a protest petition and her sworn statement was recorded on 17 December 2016. By an order of 8 July 2019 the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, rejected the ‘B’ report and took cognizance. After a further sworn statement, an order of 21 December 2019 again took cognizance and directed summons to the accused. The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., sought to quash the order rejecting the ‘B’ report, the order taking cognizance and issuing summons, and the case itself.

Allowed CRL.P/2397/2020
Bombay High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Corruption

Bombay HC at Goa quashes cognizance in Customs corruption case taken without prior sanction under the PC Act

The question: Is an order taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act valid if the sanction under Section 19 is obtained only afterwards?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed the order taking cognizance of corruption and conspiracy charges against an Assistant Commissioner of Customs and three others, holding that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance without a prior sanction. Justice Valmiki Menezes also held that, on the material in the CBI's chargesheet, no offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was prima facie made out, so there was no point in sending the matter back to the trial court. The accused stand discharged. The CBI alleged that between 2017 and 2019 Accused No. 1, then Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Goa, conspired with a private person, Accused No. 2, to defraud the Customs Department. He allegedly issued 114 work orders for furniture, electrical and renovation work at the Customs House, 80 of them without following the tender procedure, to four fictitious firms floated by Accused No. 2. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, employees of Accused No. 2, allegedly created forged documents to open bank accounts and obtain the work orders. The Special Judge, South Goa at Margao, took cognizance on 29 April 2022 without any sanction under Section 19 of the Act. Sanction was granted on 5 May 2022, limited to the Act, and produced on 1 June 2022. By an order of 10 November 2023, the Special Judge discharged Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the IPC offences but directed a charge under the Act, and discharged Accused No. 3 completely. Three accused and the State challenged this.

Dismissed CRIR/208/2026