Disposed¶8

Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2025NABAIL/5597/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; offences punishable up to seven years; Section 35 BNSS arrest safeguards; Immoral/Immortal Traffic (Prevention) Act case; Allahabad High Court; single judge Vivek Varma; applicant Ranjeet Singh; State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 229 of 2024; P.S. Sigra, Varanasi.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; application disposed of with observations regarding Section 35 of B.N.S.S. ¶8

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132192

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5597 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 2024, under Sections 3,4,5,6,7 of Immortal Traffic (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the investigation is pending in the matter. A prima facie case is made out. Referring to the provisions of Section 35 of B.N.S.S. it is submitted that since offences levelled in the first information report are punishable up to seven years only the applicant cannot be arrested. An apprehension of arrest shown in the anticipatory bail is not genuine. Thus prayer has been made for rejection of anticipatory bail.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

In the matter, it is evident from the record that anticipatory bail has been moved for the offences in which the maximum punishment is of seven years. There is a specific provision under Section 35 of B.N.S.S. on point of arrest of the accused relating to the offences punishable up to seven years. Until and unless the mandate given in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. is complied by the Investigating Officer, accused of such offences cannot be arrested.

¶12

Thus keeping in view of the statutory provisions on point of arrest of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need of anticipatory bail as the applicant cannot be arrested without complying with the provision given in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. Specific provisions under Section 35 of B.N.S.S. have been provided giving protection to the accused persons from arrest in offences punishable up to seven years punishment. Thus, prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶13

With the above observations, the present application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Sachin Mishra

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases