HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10806 of 2025 Along with : 1. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 Bnss No. 10821 of 2025: Rajesh Chaudhary Versus State of U.P. and another 2. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 Bnss No. 10915 of 2025: Praveen Kumar Versus State of U.P. Court No. - 53 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunwar Akhilendra Singh who appears for the applicant- Shubham Srivastava, Sri Uma Nath Pandey who appears for the applicant- Rajesh Chaudhary and Sri Prem Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav who appears for the applicant- Praveen Kumar and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State in all the matters and perused the material on record. 3. The present three anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S. have been filed by the applicants- Shubham Srivastava, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Akhilendra Singh, Neeja Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Shubham Srivastava .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Rajesh Chaudhary and Praveen Kumar, seeking anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 308(6), 140(2), 351(3), 61(2) B.N.S. & Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur. 4. These three anticipatory bail applications are connected together as they arise out of same case crime no. and are of co-accused. 5. The facts common in all the three matters are that a first information report was lodged on 08.08.2025 by Ravi Shankar against a four wheeler vehicle i-20 having no. UP 32 on which some unknown persons were travelling with the allegation that on 05.08.2025 he had gone for some personal work to Gorakhpur from where he was returning to his house and on the way at Ekla Bridge near Rajghat Pull at about 2 PM some unknown persons stopped his vehicle and disclosed them to be persons of Crime Branch and told him that he has illegal weapon. By saying so, they threatened him and took him in a four wheeler vehicle i-20 having no. which stared from UP 32 and made him sit in it and told him to give money after which they would release him and forcibly took him near Nausarh Police Chowki at a Jan Seva Kendra and made him take out Rs. 90,000/- from his account and took it from him. They threatened him that tomorrow at 4 PM he should come with Rs. 2,00,000/- at the same place near a shop near a hut and if he makes a complaint anywhere then he would be murdered and thrown away to which no one would know. They again reminded him that they are persons of Crime Branch. On the next day at about 1.11 PM he received a phone call reminding him of talks of yesterday and the phone was disconnected. He got terrified and after thinking a lot is giving the application. Appropriate legal action be taken. 6. The investigation in the matter started after which the names of the applicants surfaced. Even investigation of the CDRs was done. The present anticipatory bail applications have thus been filed in the matter. 7. The first information report was lodged under Sections 308(2), 127(2), 351(3) B.N.S. in which during investigation Sections 140(2), 61(2) B.N.S. & Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act were added NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025 2 and Section 127(2) B.N.S. was deleted. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant- Shubham Srivastava submitted as under:- (i) The applicant is not named in the first information report. (ii) The location of the applicant as per the CDR was found at a different place. (iii) If the applicant was travelling with the informant together in the same car there was no occasion for him to talk on his mobile as would appear from the CDR that there were talks between them. (iv) The informant was a regular visitor to the said Jan Seva Kendra and had even previously drawn money from the said Jan Seva Kendra. (v) The applicant is a Sub-Inspector in Civil Police having no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant- Rajesh Chaudhary submitted as under:- (i) Adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant- Shubham Srivastava. (ii) In addition further submitted while placing Annexure-11 to the petition that according to the CDR location the applicant was at Nausarh Chauraha and he was checking vehicles and road side encroachment along with other police personnels and challans were made of unauthorized vehicle, paragraph 25 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. (iii) The inspection was being done by the applicant at a different place and thus the presence of the applicant with the first informant is totally false. (iv) The applicant is posted as a Constable at Police Chowki, Nausarh having unblemished career as stated in paragraph 18 & 19 of the affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant- Praveen Kumar submitted as NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025 3 under:- (i) He does not argue the matter on merits. (ii) The only argument advanced is on the procedure adopted in the present matter. (iii) Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act has been added during investigation by Parcha No. 11 dated 04.09.2025 which is Annexure- 11 to the affidavit. (iv) The permission to investigate the matter has not been sought from the Superintendent of Police concerned. (v) The Proviso to Section 17 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been complied with. (vi) The investigation is illegal. (vi) The Annexure-8 to the rejoinder affidavit clearly shows that the Provision of Sub-Section 1 of Section 45 states of requirement of obtaining prior permission of the State Government for arrest. (vii) The preliminary enquiry in the matter is going on as would be evident from the charge-sheet which is Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit submitted against the co-accused Vishal and thus an investigation in the matter is still not being undertaken and thus the arrest would be illegal. (viii) The judgement in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director C.B.I.: (2014) 8 SCC 682 paragraph 61 & 62 has been placed to explain what preliminary enquiry means. 11. It is thus submitted that by all the learned counsels that the anticipatory bail applications of the applicants be allowed and they be directed to be released on anticipatory bail. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail applications vehemently and submitted as under:- (i) The CDR of the mobile phones of the accused were found to be having the same location as has been found by the Investigating Officer and would be evident from the case-diary, the extract of which NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025 4 is at page 72 in the anticipatory bail application of accused Shubham Srivastava. (ii) The investigation in the matter is still going on and there are chances of the applicants tampering with evidence since they are police personnels. (iii) The allegations in the present matter are serious in nature and even custodial interrogation may be needed for investigation. (iv) The accused Rajesh Chaudhary is pleading alibi which is to be proved in the trial and even otherwise the occurrence had taken place in a long span of time and thus merely by stating that he was present else where on duty at this stage cannot be a case to discredit the entire prosecution version. (v) The procedure of investigation in the matter is fully complied with. (vi) The ground of applicability of the Proviso of Section 17 (2) of P.C. Act is totally unfounded as the same is not applicable in the present case since the said section itself qualifies the areas in which it is applicable. (vii) The question of investigation, if illegal, cannot be looked into in an anticipatory bail. (viii) The matter is under investigation which is still going on and is such where custodial interrogation is also required as the applicants are police personnels who are alleged to have been involved in extortion and also taking illegal money from the complainant by misusing their post by threatening him of falsely implicating in a case on false allegations and thus the anticipatory bail applications be dismissed. 13. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are police personnels. The allegations against them are of forcibly stopping the complainant and taking him in their car and on a threat of falsely implicating him by planting weapon with him made him take out money from his bank which was taken by them and further money was demanded by them to be paid on the next date. They even NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025 5 threatened him of not disclosing it to anyone or else they would murder him and throw him away. It is not disputed that the applicants are police personnels. The investigation in the matter is going on in which charge-sheet has been submitted only against one accused Vishal. Counter affidavits of the State and rejoinder affidavits to the same have been filed. As per the argument of learned counsel for the State custodial interrogation may also be needed from the accused since there are chances of recovery also of the money and for other aspects and further apprehension is of them tampering with evidence since they are police personnels. The matter is serious in nature. Police perosnnels are alleged to have misused their official post. No ground for interference is made out. 14. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, this Court does not find the present cases fit for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 15. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are rejected. 16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. February 25, 2026 AS Rathore NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025 6 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad