Decision in Asheesh Kumar Case Referred to Larger Bench for Reconsideration
In a significant judicial development, the Allahabad High Court has taken a critical stance on the maintainability of anticipatory bail in complaint cases involving non-bailable offenses upon the issuance of summons. The decision stems from a series of anticipatory bail applications, prominently including the case of Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra v. State of U.P., which have sparked legal debates on the interpretation of statutory provisions regarding anticipatory bail.
The bench, presided over by Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, examined the controversial judgment in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P. This 2025 decision had previously held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable once a summons is issued in complaint cases, arguing that there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without a warrant. This interpretation, however, has been contested as inconsistent with established Supreme Court precedents.
Justice Shukla, acknowledging the complexity of the issue, has referred the matter to a larger bench for a thorough reconsideration. The court highlighted the apparent discord between the Asheesh Kumar judgment and the Supreme Court's rulings in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, which support the maintainability of anticipatory bail even after cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed.
The court underscored the necessity to consider various types of complaint cases, including those that are Magistrate triable, Sessions triable, and those under special acts like the POCSO Act. The differentiation in these cases could lead to distinct consequences post-summoning, thereby affecting the applicability of anticipatory bail.
The pivotal legal question slated for the larger bench's review is whether the Asheesh Kumar judgment correctly interpreted the law regarding anticipatory bail in complaint cases. This move signifies an important step in aligning state-level judicial interpretations with the broader legal principles established by the Supreme Court.
In the interim, the court has ordered that existing interim protections in the related cases will remain in effect until further notice. This ensures that applicants are not adversely affected while the legal question is under review.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability of anticipatory bail in complaint cases involving non-bailable offences upon issuance of summons - Judgment in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P. holding anticipatory bail not maintainable upon issuance of summons is referred for reconsideration by a Larger Bench.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Sections 482, 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 204, 208, 209 Cr.P.C., Sections 231, 232 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act provisions.
Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2874255
