Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43383 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 919 of 2025 Applicant :- Shagufta Alias Shagufta Parveen Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Murli Manohar Srivastava,Upmanyu Srivastava Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for State as well as Sri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant who has filed a short counter affidavit today which is taken on record and perused the record. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No.202 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Bazarkhala, District Lucknow. A perusal of the record shows that during investigation applicant has filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7847 of 2024 for quashing of F.I.R. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2024 which is on record, the relevant part of the judgment is extracted below;- "Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. shall be strictly followed in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another. Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner states that let this petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts. The petitioner shall, however, cooperate in the investigation and get his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called for. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the law as laid down by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). " Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in spite of the directions issued by the Division Bench to the applicant to cooperate with the investigation she has not cooperated in the investigation and, therefore, the statement could not be recorded by the Investigating Officer. Rebutting the same, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has mentioned the reasons in paragraph 23 as to why he could not comply the order passed by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady and non-bailable warrants have already been issued by the court below against which a recall application has been filed by the applicant. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that since the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation and has also not complied the order passed by the Division Bench, the anticipatory bail application may not be entertained. He has also submitted that the applicant has already approached the learned court below through counsel by moving a recall application to the non- bailable warrants, therefore, on this ground anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained. Perused the record so also the pleading made by the applicant in paragraph 23 of the bail application which is not disputed that in spite of the orders passed by the Division bench applicant has not cooperated in the investigation and hence in these circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the exceptional jurisdiction of the anticipatory bail even otherwise offences are punishable up to seven years, no case for anticipatory bail application is made out. The anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the may be given liberty to file a regular bail application in view of law laid by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another and also provide the benefit of first proviso to Section 480 of BNSS. In view of the above, it is provided that in case a regular bail application is filed within twenty days' from today before the court below, the same be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid by by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) considering the provisions of Section 480 of BNSS. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench