Atul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3434 of 2026

¶3

Atul Kumar Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Ashutosh Singh, Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 73

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Atul Kumar Singh in Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground of a massing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The disproportionate income is to the tune of Rs.73,44,894/-. It is submitted that applicant was not arrested during investigation and the charge sheet has now been submitted and summoning order has been issued. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No17034 of 2024 (Avdhesh Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh) by order dated 9.12.2024 and in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.18081 of 2024 (Musheer Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another) by order dated 17.1.2025, has directed the accused to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds as the investigation is over and there is no point in making a formal arrest and the accused should be asked to appear before the court concerned. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that applicant is ready to appear before the court concerned and furnish bail bonds.

¶11

NABAIL No. 3434 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Learned AGA could not dispute the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶14

The order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avdhesh Narayan Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

¶15

"1. The petitioner – herein prayed for anticipatory bail before the High Court in connection with First Information Report No.0003 of 2021 dated 4-8-2021 registered with the Police Station Varanasi- Sector (Vigilance Act), U.P. for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the 1988 Act").

¶16

2. It appears from the materials on record that the FIR lodged against the petitioner, being a public servant, has something to do with a departmental inquiry for the period between 1-1-2007 and 31-12-2011.

¶17

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner – herein was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income.

¶18

4. What is important to note is that the investigation was completed without arresting the petitioner – herein and charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special Court on 5-9-2024.

¶19

5. The petitioner as on date is 70 years old. Many times in this type of prosecution, the investigating agency may not arrest the accused but once the charge-sheet is filed, the trial court would ask the accused to furnish bail to its satisfaction.

¶20

6. Since the High Court declined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail, the petitioner is here before this Court.

¶21

7. We dispose of this Special Leave Petition directing the petitioner – herein to furnish bail to the concerned Special Court, who is going to try him for the alleged offence subject to its satisfaction.

¶22

8. If there are any bailable warrants issued against the petitioner, the same stand cancelled.

¶23

9. The Special Court shall now act accordingly and pass a formal order of release of the petitioner on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction,

¶24

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

¶25

NABAIL No. 3434 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

The order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

¶28

"1. The petitioner herein has been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with case Crime No.320/2020, which has now with the filing of the charge sheet culminated in Sessions Case No. 941/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988").

¶29

2. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report came to be lodged at the Kotwali Police Station, district Barabanki for the offence enumerated above. It is the case of the prosecution that the check period between 2002 and 31-5-2009 revealed that the petitioner herein had assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.1,50,41,908/- to the known sources of his income.

¶30

3. In such circumstances, the Anti Corruption Department, Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P. decided to proceed against the petitioner.

¶31

4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶32

5. We take notice of the fact that the investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur.

¶33

6. While the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer did not deem fit to arrest the petitioner herein.

¶34

7. The CBI Court has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the petitioner herein to appear.

¶35

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense.

¶36

9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶37

10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest.

¶38

NABAIL No. 3434 of 2026

¶39

4

¶40

11. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that the petitioner herein shall appear before the CBI Court, Gorakhpur and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶41

12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

¶42

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands dispose of."

¶43

In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avdhesh Narayan Singh (supra) and Musheer Alam (supra), it is hereby directed that applicant shall appear before the trial court within 30 days from today and shall submit his bail bonds. The court concerned shall thereafter proceed to accept the bail bonds to their satisfaction in compliance of order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avdhesh Narayan Singh (supra) and Musheer Alam (supra) .

¶44

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶45

May 7, 2026

¶46

D. Tamang

¶47

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶48

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Tania Sanyal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Anoop Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Harisharan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nikhilesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Shukla @ Ankush and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others