Disposed¶6

Puttilal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2025NABAIL/1468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; BNS Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352; FIR/Case Crime No. 587/2025, PS Dhaurahra, District Kheri; disposal without observing merits; liberty to seek regular bail expeditiously; Satender Kumar Antil guidelines Categories A-D (special Acts NDPS/PMLA/UAPA/Companies Act/POSCO); Siddharth v. State of UP referred within quoted guidelines; NABAIL No. 1468 of 2025; Court No. 13; Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to the applicants to prefer an application seeking bail, to be decided most expeditiously in terms of the Satender Kumar Antil judgment; nothing observed on merits, no anticipatory bail granted or refused. ¶6

Puttilal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1468 of 2025

Puttilal And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rizwanul Haque Ansari, Santi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants in relation to FIR/Case Crime No.587/2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352 of the BNS, Police Station - Dhaurahra, District -Kheri.

¶12

Considering the facts of the case as also the punishment provided for the offence under Sections 109 (1), 115 (2), 351(3), 352 of BNS as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 , without observing anything on merits, the present application is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to prefer an application seeking bail which shall be decided most expeditiously in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 has observed as under :-

¶14

"3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court

¶15

for the benefit of the Courts below. The guidelines are as under:

¶16

"Categories/Types of Offences

¶17

A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

¶18

B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

¶19

C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail likeNDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

¶20

D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

¶21

NABAIL No. 1468 of 2025

¶22

¶23

Requisite Conditions

¶24

1) Not arrested during investigation.

¶25

2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

¶26

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615)

¶27

CATEGORY A

¶28

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

¶29

a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

¶30

b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued

¶31

c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

¶32

d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

¶33

e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

¶34

CATEGORY B/D

¶35

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

¶36

CATEGORY C

¶37

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc."

¶38

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶39

October 10, 2025

¶40

ML/-

¶41

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Puttilal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttilal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Meera Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mahmood Hasan @ Mahboob Alam @ Barghey Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Istiyak @ Babbu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Brahma Dutta pandey vs Principal Judge, Family Court Raibareli and others

Sujeet Kashyap @ Sujeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.