# Pradeep Mishra v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 407
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 8077 of 2024
- **Bench:** Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-53690
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A., Manish Singh, Sushma Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
applicant,
against
whom
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated and who is alleged to be absconding, is
entitled to anticipatory bail?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section - 82, 83, 438 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section - 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B - Anticipatory Bail Application - filed
under Section 482 B.N.S.S. (equivalent to
Section 438 Cr.P.C.) by the applicant - in a
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint case involving a non-bailable offence,
seeking protection from arrest upon issuance of
a summons - State counsel raised a preliminary
objection - anticipatory bail is not maintainable
merely on the issuance of a summons in a
complaint case, as there is no apprehension of
arrest by police without a warrant - court finds
that - the applicant was summoned by the
Magistrate in a complaint case - No bailable or
non-bailable warrant had been issued at the
time of filing the anticipatory bail application -
court also observed that - 'Arrest' under Section
482 B.N.S.S. refers to police arrest without
warrant, not judicial custody - Mere issuance of
a summons or bailable warrant does not
constitute a reasonable apprehension of arrest -
Anticipatory bail is not meant to protect against
court-directed custody - In cases where a nonbailable warrant or proclamation is issued,
anticipatory bail is generally not maintainable,
except in exceptional circumstances - The
precedents cited by the applicant were found
inconsistent
with
the
Constitution
Bench
judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and other
binding rulings - held - Anticipatory bail is not
maintainable in a complaint case where only a
summons has been issued, even if the offence
alleged is non-bailable, as there is no imminent
threat of arrest by police without a warrant -
consequently, the anticipatory bail application
was rejected - However, the applicant was
granted liberty to file a regular bail application
before the trial court within 15 days, which shall
be considered in accordance with law. (Para - 6,
7, 8)
Application Rejected. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694) - Madhya
Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171)
- Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC
730) - Prem Shanker Prasad v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 14 SCC 516).

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Anticipatory Bail - Non-bailable Offence -
Summons - Arrest vs Custody - Reason to
Believe - Complaint Case - Bailable Warrant -
Non-bailable Warrant - Proclamation - Judicial
Custody
-
Police
Arrest
-
Exceptional
Circumstances
-
liberty
-
rejection
of
application.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 56 of 2022 - Police Station:
Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar - Alleged offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Rakesh Pandey sr.
Adv. assisted by Shri Nitin Sharma.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Chandan Singh
AGA and Shri Manish Singh.

## Text

8 All. Pradeep Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
407
stipulation limiting or conditioning the
functions of the arbitrator carried with it
the implication that the arbitrator should
give effect to all legal defences such as that
of limitation. Accordingly the arbitrator
was entitled and bound to apply the law of
limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act
applied by way of analogy to arbitration
proceedings, and like interpretation was
given to Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The proceedings before the arbitration are
like civil proceedings before the court
within the meaning of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. By consent the parties have
substituted the arbitrator for a court of law
to arbiter their disputes or differences. It is,
therefore, open to the parties to plead in
the proceedings before him of limitation as
a defence.

15.
In
Mustiu
and
Boyd's
Commercial Arbitration (1982 Edn.) under
the heading "Hopeless Claim" in Chapter
31 at p. 436 it is stated thus:

'There
is
undoubtedly
no
jurisdiction
to
interfere
by
way
of
injunction to prevent the respondent from
being harassed by a claim which can never
lead to valid award for example in cases
where claim is brought in respect of the
alleged arbitration agreement which does
not really exist or which has ceased to
exist. So also where the dispute lies outside
the scope of arbitration agreement.' "

(emphasis supplied)

27. Considering the consistent dictum
of the Apex Court as noticed hereinabove,
this Court is of the clear view that the
petitioner has been unable to explain the
cause for delay of over nine years and the
ground shown does not fall within the
exceptional circumstances, which may
persuade this Court to entertain the petition.
Even if Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
considered as suggested by the learned
counsel for the petitioner yet in light of
paras 123 and 124 of HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd.
(supra) no case for interference is made
out, hence, the said decision does not come
to the aid of the petitioner.

28. For the aforesaid reasons, the
petition
is
dismissed
as
barred
by
limitation. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 407
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. 8077 of 2024

Pradeep Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Kartikey Mishra, Nitin Sharma, Sarvesh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Manish Singh, Sushma Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
applicant,
against
whom
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated and who is alleged to be absconding, is
entitled to anticipatory bail?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section - 82, 83, 438 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section - 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B - Anticipatory Bail Application - filed
under Section 482 B.N.S.S. (equivalent to
Section 438 Cr.P.C.) by the applicant - in a
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint case involving a non-bailable offence,
seeking protection from arrest upon issuance of
a summons - State counsel raised a preliminary
objection - anticipatory bail is not maintainable
merely on the issuance of a summons in a
complaint case, as there is no apprehension of
arrest by police without a warrant - court finds
that - the applicant was summoned by the
Magistrate in a complaint case - No bailable or
non-bailable warrant had been issued at the
time of filing the anticipatory bail application -
court also observed that - 'Arrest' under Section
482 B.N.S.S. refers to police arrest without
warrant, not judicial custody - Mere issuance of
a summons or bailable warrant does not
constitute a reasonable apprehension of arrest -
Anticipatory bail is not meant to protect against
court-directed custody - In cases where a nonbailable warrant or proclamation is issued,
anticipatory bail is generally not maintainable,
except in exceptional circumstances - The
precedents cited by the applicant were found
inconsistent
with
the
Constitution
Bench
judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and other
binding rulings - held - Anticipatory bail is not
maintainable in a complaint case where only a
summons has been issued, even if the offence
alleged is non-bailable, as there is no imminent
threat of arrest by police without a warrant -
consequently, the anticipatory bail application
was rejected - However, the applicant was
granted liberty to file a regular bail application
before the trial court within 15 days, which shall
be considered in accordance with law. (Para - 6,
7, 8)
Application Rejected. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694) - Madhya
Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171)
- Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC
730) - Prem Shanker Prasad v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 14 SCC 516).

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Anticipatory Bail - Non-bailable Offence -
Summons - Arrest vs Custody - Reason to
Believe - Complaint Case - Bailable Warrant -
Non-bailable Warrant - Proclamation - Judicial
Custody
-
Police
Arrest
-
Exceptional
Circumstances
-
liberty
-
rejection
of
application.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 56 of 2022 - Police Station:
Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar - Alleged offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Rakesh Pandey sr.
Adv. assisted by Shri Nitin Sharma.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Chandan Singh
AGA and Shri Manish Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitin
Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A., Sri
Manish Singh, learned counsel for the
informant, for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present second anticipatory bail
application has been moved on behalf of
applicant
Pradeep
Mishra,
seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 56 of
2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali
District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer that
in the event of arrest, applicant may be
released on anticipatory bail.The first
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., No. 7090 of
2024 has been dismissed as withdrawn,
with the liberty to afresh anticipatory bail
vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the allegations against the
accused persons that on the basis of forged
documents, the property of the applicant
8 All. Pradeep Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
409
are being sold. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant is a
Corporator and is not a beneficiary from
the alleged transaction. He further submits
that only role assigned to the applicant is
that when Form RC9 was prepared
concerned Lekhpal had given his report and
asked the applicant to verity the signature
of his cousin Vipin Mishra and Amit Singh.
He further submits that the applicant had
verified the signature and has no concerned
with the alleged offence. Learned counsel
further argued that applicant is innocent
and he has an apprehension that he may be
arrested in the above-mentioned case,
whereas there is no credible evidence
against him. It has further been submitted
that no coercive process has been issued
against the applicant so far. It was also
submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and
he would appear as and when required by
the investigating agency or Court. It has
been stated that in case, the applicant is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would
obey all conditions of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel
for first informant have opposed the
application for anticipatory bail. Learned
counsel
further
submits
that
first
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant was rejected on 24.07.2024 and
prior to it, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
has been issued against the applicant.
Learned counsel further argued that the
applicant is absconding and by the efflux of
time proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
is running against the applicant, therefore
the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory
bail.

5. In the matter of Siddharam
Satlingappa
Mhetre
v.
State
of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has
been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
while deciding anticipatory bail, Court
must consider nature and gravity of
accusation,
antecedent
of
accused,
possibility of accused to flee from justice
and that Court must evaluate entire
available material against the accused
carefully and that the exact role of the
accused has also to be taken into
consideration.

6. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the matter of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep
Sharma reported in 2014 (2) SCC 171 has
held that a person against whom the
proclamation has been issued and the
proceeding under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C.
have been initiated, is not entitled to the
benefit of anticipatory bail. In paragraph
no.14 to 16, it has been observed as
follows:-

"14. In order to answer the above
question, it is desirable to refer to Section
438 of the Code which reads as under:

"438. Direction for grant of bail
to person apprehending arrest.- (1) Where
any person has reason to believe that he
may be arrested on accusation of having
committed a nonbailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of
Session for a direction under this section
that in the event of such arrest he shall be
released on bail; and that court may, after
taking into consideration, inter alia, the
following factors, namely-

(i) the nature and gravity of the
accusation;
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii)
the
antecedents
of
the
applicant including the fact as to whether
he has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;

(iii)
the
possibility
of
the
applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has
been made with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested, either reject the application
forthwith or issue an interim order for the
grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided that, where the High
Court or, as the case may be, the Court of
Session, has not passed any interim order
under this sub-section or has rejected the
application for grant of anticipatory bail, it
shall be open to an officer in charge of a
police station to arrest, without warrant the
applicant on the basis of the accusation
apprehended in such application."

The above provision makes it
clear that the power exercisable under
Section 438 of the Code is somewhat
extraordinary in character and it is to be
exercised only in exceptional cases where it
appears that the person may be falsely
implicated or where there are reasonable
grounds for holding that a person accused
of an offence is not likely to otherwise
misuse his liberty.

15. In Adri Dharan Das v. State
of W.B. [(2005) 4 SCC 303] this Court
considered the scope of Section 438 of the
Code as under : (SCC pp. 311-12, para 16)

"16. Section 438 is a procedural
provision which is concerned with the
personal liberty of an individual who is
entitled to plead innocence, since he is not
on the date of application for exercise of
power under Section 438 of the Code
convicted for the offence in respect of
which he seeks bail. The applicant must
show that he has 'reason to believe' that he
may be arrested in a non-bailable offence.
Use of the expression 'reason to believe'
shows that the belief that the applicant may
be arrested must be founded on reasonable
grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief' for
which reason it is not enough for the
applicant to show that he has some sort of
vague apprehension that someone is going
to make an accusation against him in
pursuance of which he may be arrested.
Grounds on which the belief of the
applicant is based that he may be arrested
in non-bailable offence must be capable of
being examined. If an application is made
to the High Court or the Court of Session, it
is for the court concerned to decide whether
a case has been made out for granting of
the relief sought. The provisions cannot be
invoked after arrest of the accused. A
blanket order should not be generally
passed. It flows from the very language of
the section which requires the applicant to
show that he has reason to believe that he
may be arrested. A belief can be said to be
founded on reasonable grounds only if
there is something tangible to go by on the
basis of which it can be said that the
applicant's apprehension that he may be
arrested is genuine. Normally a direction
should not issue to the effect that the
applicant
shall
be
released
on
bail
'whenever arrested for whichever offence
whatsoever'. Such 'blanket order' should
not be passed as it would serve as a blanket
to cover or protect any and every kind of
allegedly unlawful activity. An order under
Section 438 is a device to secure the
individual's liberty, it is neither a passport
to the commission of crimes nor a shield
8 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
411
against any and all kinds of accusations
likely or unlikely. On the facts of the case,
considered in the background of the legal
position set out above, this does not prima
facie appear to be a case where any order in
terms of Section 438 of the Code can be
passed."

16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , this
Court (of which both of us were parties)
considered the scope of granting relief
under Section 438 vis-a-vis a person who
was
declared
as
an
absconder
or
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as
under : (SCC p. 733)

"12. From these materials and
information, it is clear that the present
appellant
was
not
available
for
interrogation and investigation and was
declared as 'absconder'. Normally, when
the accused is 'absconding' and declared as
a 'proclaimed offender', there is no
question of granting anticipatory bail. We
reiterate that when a person against whom a
warrant had been issued and is absconding
or concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail."

It is clear from the above decision
that
if
anyone
is
declared
as
an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail."

7. Recently, Hon?ble Apex Court,
relying upon decision of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Pradeep Sharma (supra) as well as
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra)
has held in the matter of Prem Shanker
Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and
another reported in 2022 (14) SCC 516,
that
if
any
one
is
declared
absconder/proclaimed offender in term of
Section 82 Cr.P.C., is not entitled to relief
of anticipatory bail even in the business
transaction also there may be offences
under I.P.C. more particularly Sections
406, 420, 467, 468 etc. what is required to
be considered is nature of allegation and
accusation and not that nature of accusation
arising out of a business transaction.

8. In the instant case, perusal of the
record shows that specific allegation has
been levelled against the applicant in
commission of offence and that the
accused-applicant is absconding till date,
against whom proclamation under Section
82
Cr.P.C.,
has
also
been
issued,
considering the settled principle of law
regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, nature
of accusation, role of applicant and all
attending facts and circumstances of the
case, without expressing any opinion on
merit of the case, no case for anticipatory
bail is made out.

9. The anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 411
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14940 of
2023

Rana Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party