Anticipatory bail application for alleged illegal mining offences punishable up to seven years was refused. The court reasoned that Section 35 BNSS mandates arrest compliance procedures, so the applicant cannot be arrested without complying with it; no anticipatory bail is needed. Application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161444
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8847 of 2024
Applicant :- Santosh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Vijeta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
apprehension of arrest shown in the anticipatory bail is not genuine. Thus prayer has been made for rejection of anticipatory bail.
Order Date :- 3.10.2024 SKT/-
Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Can anticipatory bail be granted when the offences charged are punishable only up to seven years under Section 35 BNSS arrest provisions?
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Santosh Singh
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
