Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136959 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3705 of 2025 Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Upadhyay Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State and Sri Krishna Kant Upadhyay, counsel for the informant. Perused the material on record. 3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 B.N.S., Police Station Biwar, District- Hamirpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the investigation is pending in the matter. A prima facie case is made out. Referring to the provisions of Section 35 B.N.S.S. it is submitted that since offences levelled in the first information report are punishable up to seven years only the applicant cannot be arrested. An apprehension of arrest shown in the anticipatory bail is not genuine. Thus prayer has been made for rejection of anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties. 7. In the matter, it is evident from the record that anticipatory bail has been moved for the offences in which the maximum punishment is seven years. There is a specific provision under Section 35 B.N.S.S. on point of arrest of the accused relating to the offences punishable up to seven years. Until and unless the mandate given in Section 35 B.N.S.S. is complied by the Investigating Officer, accused of such offences cannot be arrested. 8. Thus keeping in view of the statutory provisions on point of arrest of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need of anticipatory bail as the applicants cannot be arrested without complying with the provision given in Section 35 B.N.S.S. Specific provisions under Section 35 B.N.S.S. have been provided giving protection to the accused persons for arrest of offences punishable up to seven years punishment. Thus, prayer made in the present application is refused. 9. With the above observations, the present application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad