# Prashant Shukla v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 14
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 398 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53474
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 - Sections 80 & 85 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Sessions Court entertained anticipatory
bail applications of three co-accused but
5 All. Prashant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
15
declined
interim
protection,
thereby
continuing their apprehension of arrest -
Reasonable
likelihood
that
applicant
would be denied interim relief if he would
approach
Sessions
Court
-
These
circumstances
constitute
exceptional
situation justifying applicant, a young
B.Tech. student, in directly approaching
High Court for anticipatory bail - Having
considered
facts
and
circumstances,
including
FIR
implicates
applicant's
mother
(co-accused)
in
strangulation,
while post-mortem report indicates death
by asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging
with only 6 cm-interrupted ligature mark
and
no
other
injuries,
no
specific
allegation made against applicant, he is
21-year-old engineering student, he has
undertaken to cooperate in investigation
and trial, case is made out for grant of
anticipatory bail. (Para 8, 16)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an Arbitrator as such it is apparent that the
respondents
have
patently
erred
in
appointing Shri S.K. Singh, who is
admittedly a shareholder of the I.O.C. as an
Arbitrator.

31. Thus, once the applicants have
withdrawn the consent for appointment of
Shri S.K. Singh as an Arbitrator which
consent, as already indicated above, was
for appointment of an employee yet an
employee and a shareholder has been
appointed as an Arbitrator as such the
appointment of Shri S.K. Singh as an
Arbitrator is clearly not countenanced in
the eyes of the law.

32. Accordingly, considering the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC (supra) the appointment of
Shri S.K. Singh as an Arbitrator is not
found to be ex facie valid and his
appointment does not satisfy this court and
clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of
law and is thus held to be invalid in law.

33. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, a case is made out to entertain
this application as preferred by the
applicants.

34. Accordingly, the court accepts
the application and annuls the effect of the
letter dated 24.06.2024 appointing Shri
S.K.
Singh
as
an
Arbitrator
and
appointment of the Arbitrator.

35. Further, in exercise of the
power conferred under Section 11(6) of the
Act, 1986 the Court proposes to appoint
Justice D.K. Arora (Retired) r/o Type VII,
New Campus, SGPGI, Raebareli Road,
Lucknow as an Arbitrator to settle the
dispute between the parties.
36. Let a copy of the pleadings on
record alongwith the relevant provisions of
the Act with amending Act 2015 be sent to
Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Arora, a former
Judge of this Court, for eliciting his
disclosures on format under the schedule in
terms of Section 11(8) read with Section
12(1) of the Act, 1996 and Schedule VI and
VII as amended by Act 2015, appended
thereto
and
also
his
consent
for
appointment as an Arbitrator for resolving
the dispute.

37.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants shall supply an additional copy
of the application to the office for the said
purpose within a week.

38. List immediately after receipt
of reply/consent.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 14
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
482 BNSS No. 398 of 2025

Prashant Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rakshit Raj Singh, Ayush Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 - Sections 80 & 85 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Sessions Court entertained anticipatory
bail applications of three co-accused but
5 All. Prashant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
15
declined
interim
protection,
thereby
continuing their apprehension of arrest -
Reasonable
likelihood
that
applicant
would be denied interim relief if he would
approach
Sessions
Court
-
These
circumstances
constitute
exceptional
situation justifying applicant, a young
B.Tech. student, in directly approaching
High Court for anticipatory bail - Having
considered
facts
and
circumstances,
including
FIR
implicates
applicant's
mother
(co-accused)
in
strangulation,
while post-mortem report indicates death
by asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging
with only 6 cm-interrupted ligature mark
and
no
other
injuries,
no
specific
allegation made against applicant, he is
21-year-old engineering student, he has
undertaken to cooperate in investigation
and trial, case is made out for grant of
anticipatory bail. (Para 8, 16)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ankit Bharti Vs St. of U.P. & anr.: 2020 SCC
OnLine All 1949, (Paras 17 to 22)

2. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of U.P.: 2019 SCC OnLine
All 4821
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash
Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravi
Srivastava,
the
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State, Sri
Vivek Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for
the
informant,
who
has
filed
his
Vakalatanam, which is taken on record, and
perused the records.

2. Learned counsel for the informant
has raised a preliminary objection that the
applicant
has
approached
this
Court
directly without filing application for
anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court
and, therefore, the instant application
should not be entertained. It has been
submitted that anticipatory bail applications
filed by the three co-accused persons are
pending before the Sessions Court and their
prayer for grant of interim protection has
been rejected by the Sessions Court.

3. Replying to the aforesaid, learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant is a young person aged 21
years and is pursuing B.Tech. Course. His
examinations are schedule to commence
shortly and as the Sessions Court has
already rejected the prayer for grant of
interim protection to the three co-accused
persons, the applicant has approached this
Court directly in view of the aforesaid
exceptional circumstances.

4. The learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned Counsel for the
informant have placed reliance upon a
judgment rendered by a Bench consisting
of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the
case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and
Another: 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949,
wherein the following questions were
referred to the larger Bench: -

"(i) Whether the Court would
have
no
jurisdiction
to
reject
the
anticipatory bail after considering the
grounds of compelling reasons mentioned
in the affidavit being found not appealing,
which would amount nothing but to
approach this Court directly;

(ii) Whether amongst the grounds
which have been enumerated in the
judgment
in
the
case
of Vinod
Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (A)
requires any reconsideration so as to
preclude the co-accused approaching this
Court directly in case the other coaccused's regular bail/anticipatory bail is
rejected by the Court of Sessions and
whether he be also subjected to filing such
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an
affidavit,
showing
therein
the
circumstances in which he had to feel
compelled to approach this Court directly;

(iii)
Whether
amongst
the
grounds which have been enumerated in
the
judgment
in
the
case
of Vinod
Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (B)
requires any reconsideration as to whether
an accused, who is not residing within the
jurisdiction
of
the
Sessions
Court
concerned, faces a threat of arrest, should
be allowed to approach the High Court
directly, to move an anticipatory bail
application by the logic given above in
Para 6 of this judgment; and

 (iv) Whether such anticipatory
bail applications which do not contain any
compelling reason to approach this Court
directly, should be entertained."

5. The five Judge Bench referred to
the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar
v. State of U.P.: 2019 SCC OnLine All
4821, wherein it has been held that: -

"A. Section 438 Cr.P.C. on its
plain terms does not mandate or require a
party to first approach the Sessions Court
before applying to the High Court for
grant of anticipatory bail. The provision
as it stands does not require an individual
first being relegated to the Court of
Sessions before being granted the right of
audience before this Court.

B. Notwithstanding concurrent
jurisdiction being conferred on the High
Court and the Court of Session for grant
of anticipatory bail under Section 438
Cr.P.C., strong, cogent, compelling and
special circumstances must necessarily be
found to exist in justification of the High
Court being approached first without the
avenue as available before the Court of
Sessions being exhausted. Whether those
factors are established or found to exist in
the facts of a particular case must
necessarily be left for the Court to
consider in each individual matter.

C. The words "exceptional" or
"extraordinary" are understood to mean
atypical, rare, out of the ordinary, unusual
or uncommon. If the jurisdiction of the
Court as conferred by Section 438 Cr.P.C.
be circumscribed or be recognised to be
moved only in exceptional situations it
would again amount to fettering and
constricting
the
discretion
otherwise
conferred by Section 438 Cr.P.C. Such a
construction would be in clear conflict of
the statutory mandate. The ratio of
Harendra Singh must be recognised to be
the
requirement
of
establishing
the
existence
of
special,
weighty
and
compelling reasons and circumstances
justifying the invocation of the jurisdiction
of this Court even though a wholesome
avenue of redress was available before the
Court of Sessions

D.
What
would
constitute
"special circumstances" in light of the
nature of the power conferred, must be left
to be gathered by the Judge on a due
evaluation of the facts and circumstances
of a particular case. It would be imprudent
to exhaustively chronicle what would be
special circumstances. It is impossible to
either identify or compendiously postulate
what
would
constitute
special
circumstances.
Sibbia
spoke
of
the
"imperfect awareness of the needs of new
situations". It is this constraint which
necessitates the Court leaving it to the
wisdom of the Judge and the discretion
vested in him by statute.

E. While the Explanation may
have created an avenue for an aggrieved
person to challenge an order passed under
Section 438(1), it cannot be construed or
viewed as barring the jurisdiction of the
High
Court
from
entertaining
an
5 All. Prashant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
17
application for grant of anticipatory bail
notwithstanding that prayer having been
refused by the Court of Sessions.

F. Till such time as the question
with respect to the period for which an
order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should
operate is answered by the Larger Bench,
the Court granting anticipatory bail would
have to specify that it would continue only
till the Court summons the accused based
on the report that may be submitted under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereafter it would
be open for the applicant on appearance to
seek regular bail in accordance with the
provisions made in Section 439 Cr.P.C."
(Emphasis added)

6. In Ankit Bharti (Supra), the Five
Judge Bench of this Court discussed the
law on the point and held that: -

"17. We, therefore, hold that the
conclusions
as
recorded
in Vinod
Kumar on the meaning to be ascribed to
exceptional or special circumstances needs
no reconsideration. It must, as was noted
there, be left to the concerned Judge to
exercise the discretion as vested in him by
the statute dependent upon the facts
obtaining in a particular case.

18. The second aspect which
needs to be emphasized and reiterated is
that Vinod Kumar itself while articulating
some of the situations in which the High
Court
may
be
moved
directly
had
underlined the necessity of those assertions
being evidenced and substantiated in fact.
A
bald
assertion
without
requisite
particulars was neither suggested as being
sufficient to petition the High Court nor
does such an assumption flow from that
decision. Vinod Kumar has explained that
an application of grant of anticipatory bail
cannot rest on vague and unsubstantiated
allegations or lack of material particulars
in support of the threat of imminent arrest.
The learned Judge has while dealing with
this aspect also referred to the pertinent
observations as made by the Supreme
Court in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi v. State of
Orissa: (2012) 5 SCC 690. Consequently it
must
be
held
that
some
of
the
circumstances which have been noted by
the learned Judge in Vinod Kumar by way
of an exemplar of what may constitute
special circumstances is not to be read or
understood as empty incantations but must
necessarily be supported and established
from the material on record. The petition
must rest on a strong foundation in support
of the imminent threat of arrest as alleged.
This aspect has also been duly emphasised
by the Constitution Bench in Sushila
Agarwal as is evident from the parts
extracted above with it being observed that
the application must be based "...on
concrete facts (and not vague or general
allegations)..."

19. Viewed in that backdrop it is
manifest that it was open for the learned
Judge to assess the facts of each case to
form
an
opinion
whether
special
circumstances existed or not entitling the
applicant there to approach the High Court
directly. Considered from the aforesaid
perspective, it is manifest that Question (i)
as framed by the learned Judge is really
unwarranted. If the learned Judge was of
the opinion that the averments made in
support
of
the
existence
of
special
circumstances were "not appealing" [as he
chooses to describe it] or unconvincing,
nothing hindered the Court from holding
so.

20. We
would
consequently
answer the Reference by holding that the
decision in Vinod Kumar does not merit
any reconsideration or explanation. As
rightly held in that decision, there can be
no exhaustive or general exposition of
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances in which an applicant may
be held entitled to approach the High Court
directly. The Court would clearly err in
attempting to draw a uniform code or
dictum that may guide the exercise of
discretion vested in the Court under
Section 438 of
the Criminal
Procedure
Code. The discretion wisely left unfettered
by the Legislature must be recognised as
being available to be exercised dependent
upon the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. The contingencies spelled
out in Vinod Kumar as illustrative of
special circumstances may, where duly
established, constitute a ground to petition
the High Court directly.

21. The special circumstances the
existence of which have been held to be a
sine qua non to the entertainment of an
application for anticipatory bail directly by
the High Court must be left for the
consideration of the Hon'ble Judge before
whom the petition is placed and a decision
thereon taken bearing in mind the facts and
circumstances of that particular cause.
However
special
circumstances
must
necessarily exist and be established as such
before the jurisdiction of the High Court is
invoked. The application must rest on a
strong foundation in respect of both the
apprehension of arrest as well as in
justification of the concurrent jurisdiction
of the High Court being invoked directly.
The factors enumerated in Vinod Kumar
including (A) and (B) as constituting
special circumstances do not merit any
review except to observe that the existence
of any particular circumstance must be
convincingly established and not rest on
vague allegations.

22. In light of the aforesaid, we
answer the Reference as follows:-

Question (i) and (iv) clearly do
not merit any elucidation for it is for the
concerned Judge to assess whether special
circumstances do exist in a particular case
warranting the jurisdiction of the High
Court being invoked directly. We answer
Questions (ii) and (iii) in the negative and
hold that Vinod Kumar does not merit any
reconsideration or further explanation. It
would be for the concerned Judge to form
an opinion in the facts of each particular
case whether special circumstances do
exist and stand duly established."

7. Thus the law on the point is that the
an applicant can approach the High Court
directly for seeking anticipatory bail where
there are some special circumstances
justifying him not approaching the Session
Court first.

8. In the present case, the Sessions
Court has entertained the anticipatory bail
applications of three co-accused persons
but has declined to grant interim protection
to them. Therefore, the apprehension of
arrest
of
those
co-accused
person
continues.
There
is
a
reasonable
apprehension that in case the applicant
approaches the Sessions Court, the Session
Court will be consistent in its approach and
he would also not be granted interim
anticipatory bail. These circumstances
make out an exceptional circumstance
justifying the applicant, who is a young
man who is pursuing B.Tech. Course,
approaching this Court directly with
approaching the Session Court with the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

9.
Accordingly,
the
preliminary
objection raised by learned counsel for the
informant is rejected.

10. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail in respect of F.I.R.No.0238 of 2025,
under Sections 80 and 85 B.N.S. and
5 All. Prashant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
19
Section 3 & 4 D.P. Act, registered at Police
Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow South.

11. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
on 31.03.2025 against the applicant, his
father, mother and elder-brother, stating
that the informant had got his daughter
married to the applicant's elder brother/coaccused- Sushant Shukla on 21.04.2024;
that all the accused persons used to harass
her for demanding dowry; that the husband
of the deceased is working as Lance Naik
in Indian Army and is posted in Guwahati,
he had taken his wife with him for
sometime but also he used to ill-treat her;
that he had left his wife at his home a few
days ago where the other accused persons
used to harass her for demanding additional
dowry; that the informant's daughter had
complained her parents about the illtreatment meted out by the accused
persons, but the informant chose not to
make any complaint in this regard and that
the applicant's mother (co-accused Rekha)-
allegedly strangulated his daughter on
29.03.2025.

12.
The
learned
Additional
Government Advocate as well as the
learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail
to
the
applicant.
The
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
has
produced a copy of the relevant extract of
case diary for perusal of the Court.

13. The postmortem examination
report mentions a ligature mark around the
neck,
passing
obliquely
upward
and
backward which was interrupted by 6cm on
posterolateral aspect of left side of neck
and the cause of death has been opined to
be asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging.
No other injury was reported on the deadbody.

14. The learned counsel for the
informant has submitted that the coaccused- Shiv Prakash Shukla and the
applicant
Prashant
Shukla
had
filed
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3407 of
2025 and 3404 of 2025 respectively which
have been dismissed as withdrawn by
means of orders dated 23.04.2025.

15. Writ petition filed for quashing of
the
FIR
and
application
filed
for
anticipatory bail are altogether different
remedies, which are to be decided on
different
sets
of
considerations
and
grounds. Dismissal of the writ petition
seeking quashing of the FIR would not
create a bar on filing of an application for
grant of anticipatory bail and the same has
to be considered on its merits.

16. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the fact that although the
FIR alleges that the applicant's mother (coaccused Rekha) strangulated the deceased
with the help of other accused person, the
postmortem
examination
report
only
mentions a ligature mark around the neck
which was interrupted by 6cm; that the
cause of death has been opined to be
asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; that no
other injury has been found on any other part
of the dead-body; that no specific allegation
has been levelled against the applicant; that
the applicant is a young man aged 21 years
who
is
pursuing
bachelor
course
in
engineering and he has undertaken to
cooperate in the investigation and trial, I am
of the view that the aforesaid facts are
sufficient for making out a case for granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/
appearance of applicant- Prashant Shukla
before the learned Trial Court in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released
on anticipatory bail on his furnishing
personal bond and two solvent sureties,
each in the like amount, to the satisfaction
of
S.H.O./Court
concerned
on
the
following conditions and subject to any
other conditions that may be fixed by the
Trial Court:

(i). that the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii) that the applicant shall not
leave India without the previous permission
of the court;

(iv) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted;
and

(v). that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 20
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. 447 of 2025

Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar, Adarsh Tripathi, Prabhat
Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section
438-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 -
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22(c )-
Maintainability
of
anticipatory
bail
application in view of the facts that it
pertains to NDPS Act and therefore is not
maintainable in terms of section 438(6)
CrPC-The court held that the repeal of the
Code
of
criminal
procedure
and
its
replacement by the BNSS 2023 does not
save the U.P. Amendment (Act No. 4 of
2019), which had barred anticipatory
bail in NDPS Act offences-BNSS is not
saving
clause
for
state
legislative
amendments,
and
the
term
"notification" therein cannot include a
state enactment under Article 246 of the
Constitution-Relying on constitutional
principles, section 6 of General Clauses
Act, and the proviso to Article 254(2),
the court ruled that where Parliament
subsequently
re-enacts
a
law
with
differences, the repugnant state law
stands overridden-As section 482 BNSS
omits the earlier embargo under section
438(6) CrPC, anticipatory bail is now
maintainable even in NDPS Act offencesOn
facts,
considering
the
lack
of
recovery from the applicant, the pending
FSL report, and the prior grant of
anticipatory bail under IPC sections, the
Court granted anticipatory bail to the
applicant.(Para 1 to 61)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: