In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that the restrictions on anticipatory bail under the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2019 (Act No. 4 of 2019), do not survive after the repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Justice Shree Prakash Singh delivered the judgment while allowing the anticipatory bail application of Raman Sahni, who was facing proceedings under the Gangsters Act.
Background:
The case involved an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by Raman Sahni in connection with Case Crime No. 124 of 2021, registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at Kotwali Police Station, Sitapur.
Advocates Appeared:
The applicant was represented by Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate, assisted by Sri Ayush Singh. Senior Advocate Sri I.B. Singh also appeared on behalf of the applicant, assisted by Sri Avinash Singh Vishen.
The State was represented by Sri V.K. Singh, Government Advocate, assisted by Sri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh (A.G.A.-I), along with Sri Vaibhav Srivastava and Sri Nirmal Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocates.
Sri Sriniwas Bajpai appeared on behalf of the complainant.
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae, and was assisted by Sri Utsav Misra, Akber Ahmed, Madhur Jhavar, Maria Fatima, Alina, Chinmay Misra, Ravi Singh, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Ramendra Yadav, Shriya Agarwal, Ahad, and Ankit Tripathi, Advocates.
Arguments and Objections:
The State raised two preliminary objections:
- That the applicant had directly approached the High Court instead of the Sessions Court, rendering the application not maintainable as per the law laid down in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949.
- That anticipatory bail could not be granted in Gangster Act cases in light of the restrictions imposed by Section 6(a)(b) of the U.P. Amendment Act, 2019.
The applicant argued that due to multiple FIRs lodged by a politically and financially influential complainant and threats to life, approaching the Sessions Court was not safe. It was also submitted that his arrest was being pursued due to personal animosity.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Shree Prakash Singh rejected the first objection, holding that, as per Ankit Bharti and Vinod Kumar rulings, the High Court can exercise discretion to entertain anticipatory bail applications directly if special circumstances are convincingly established. The Court noted that the petitioner had demonstrated such circumstances, including threats and prior harassment through numerous FIRs.
On the second issue, the Court undertook an extensive comparative analysis of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (as amended by the U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019) and Section 482 of BNSS 2023. It found the provisions materially different and concluded that the State amendment could not be transposed into the new statute.
The Court observed:
“It is not a case where a repealed provision in erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C. 1973 has been verbatim retained under the new Section 482 of Sanhita 2023 which may lead to any such conclusion that the state amendments… are to be read in the new provision.”
The judgment also invoked Article 254 of the Constitution, emphasizing that Parliament’s re-enactment of the criminal procedure law with comprehensive changes impliedly repeals State amendments enacted under a repealed central law, even if such amendments had previously received Presidential assent.
Citing Constitution Bench judgments such as Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay and T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, the Court held:
“A State law would be repugnant to the Union law when both operate in the same field and cannot stand together. Such repugnancy leads to implied repeal even if not expressly stated.”
Decision:
The High Court rejected the preliminary objections and held the anticipatory bail application maintainable. It also declared that the U.P. Amendment restricting anticipatory bail in Gangster Act cases stands impliedly repealed after the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Case Title: Raman Sahni vs State Of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1710 of 2024
