The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no bar on filing an application for anticipatory bail after dismissal of a petition for quashing of an FIR, as both of them are different remedies.

The Court was considering an Anticipatory Bail Application filed in an FIR registered under Sections 80 and 85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, "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."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Rakshit Raj Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Informant raised a preliminary objection that the Applicant had approached the Court directly without filing an Application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and, therefore, the application should not be entertained. It was submitted that the anticipatory bail Applications filed by the three co-accused persons are pending before the Sessions Court and their prayer for the grant of interim protection was rejected by the Sessions Court.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a young person aged 21 years and is pursuing B.Tech course and 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 approached the Court directly in view of the exceptional circumstances.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that 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.

"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," the Court observed.

The Court held that since the Application for anticipatory bail and the petition for quashing of an FIR are both different remedies, one doesn't bar the other.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Prashant Shukla vs. State Of U.P. 2025:AHC-LKO:25462

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocate Rakshit Raj Singh, Advocate Ayush Agarwal

Respondent- Government Advocate

Click here to read/ download Order




Allahabad High CourtJustice Subhash Vidyarthi

Sheetal Joon