Criminal Defense · Bail

Anticipatory Bail in Uttar Pradesh Under Section 482 BNSS: Who Can Apply, Restrictions, and Sessions Court or High Court

By Advocate Arvind Tripathi · October 29, 2026

Anticipatory bail was abolished in Uttar Pradesh in 1976 and restored in 2019 with exceptions. It is now governed by Section 482 of the BNSS. This article explains who can apply, whether the 2019 Uttar Pradesh restrictions for NDPS, Gangsters Act and capital cases still apply, the bars that remain, whether the Sessions Court must be approached before the Allahabad High Court, and how long the protection lasts.

A person who fears arrest in a criminal case can ask the court, before any arrest, for a direction that he be released on bail if he is arrested. This is anticipatory bail. In Uttar Pradesh the subject has an unusual history: the remedy was abolished in the State in 1976, restored in 2019 with exceptions, and is now governed by Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

This article explains what anticipatory bail is, which restrictions apply in Uttar Pradesh today, whether the Sessions Court must be approached before the Allahabad High Court, how long the protection lasts, and when it is usually refused. It reflects the law as verified on 29 October 2026.

WHAT SECTION 482 BNSS PROVIDES

Under Section 482(1) of the BNSS, a person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction that, in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail.

Under Section 482(2), the court may attach conditions to the direction, including that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required, shall not threaten or induce any witness, and shall not leave India without the court's permission. Section 482(3) provides that if the person is later arrested without warrant on that accusation, he shall be released on bail.

Section 482(4) excludes anticipatory bail altogether for offences under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which concern rape of a woman under sixteen years of age and gang rape of a woman under eighteen years of age.

THE HISTORY IN UTTAR PRADESH

Section 438 of the CrPC was omitted in Uttar Pradesh by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976. For more than four decades, a person in the State who feared arrest could not seek anticipatory bail and often approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the FIR and seek protection from arrest.

The remedy was restored by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019), with effect from 6 June 2019. The restored provision contained a sub-section (6) that excluded anticipatory bail in certain cases, including offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and offences punishable with death.

DO THE 2019 UTTAR PRADESH RESTRICTIONS STILL APPLY?

The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 and repealed the CrPC. Section 482 of the BNSS does not contain the exclusions that the Uttar Pradesh amendment had added to Section 438 CrPC. The question therefore arose whether those exclusions still bind the courts in Uttar Pradesh.

Single Judge Benches of the Allahabad High Court have answered that they do not. In Raman Sahni v. State of U.P. (2025), the High Court held that the State amendment restricting anticipatory bail, including in a case under the Gangsters Act, stood impliedly repealed when Parliament repealed the CrPC without saving State amendments, relying on the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the State remains free to enact its own amendment to the BNSS.

In Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia v. State of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:34988), the Lucknow Bench held that an application under Section 482 BNSS is maintainable in a case under the NDPS Act. The Court held that the Uttar Pradesh amendment is an enactment and not a notification, so it is not saved by Section 531(2)(b) of the BNSS, and that the re-enacted Section 482 prevails under Article 254(2).

In Abdul Hameed v. State of U.P. (2025:AHC:102975), the High Court held that the bar on anticipatory bail in offences punishable with death no longer applies under Section 482 BNSS, and that a fresh application was maintainable even though an earlier application under the CrPC had been rejected on that ground, because the change in the law was a change in circumstances.

These are decisions of Single Judges. As of the date of this article, we have not found a Division Bench or Supreme Court decision taking a different view, or a fresh Uttar Pradesh amendment to the BNSS restoring the exclusions. The position should be checked at the time of filing, because a larger Bench decision or a State amendment would change it.

OTHER STATUTORY BARS THAT STILL APPLY

Apart from Section 482(4) BNSS, some special statutes contain their own restrictions. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 excludes anticipatory bail in cases under that Act. The Supreme Court held in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, and reiterated in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024), that the bar applies only where the complaint discloses a prima facie case under the Act. Where it does not, the court can consider anticipatory bail on its merits.

In cases under the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, an application may be maintainable, but the stricter conditions of those statutes and the seriousness of the allegations are weighed by the court when deciding it.

SESSIONS COURT FIRST, OR THE HIGH COURT DIRECTLY?

Section 482 BNSS confers the power on both the High Court and the Court of Session. In Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. (2020), a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court declined to define the special circumstances in which a person may approach the High Court directly, and left the question to the discretion of the court in each case. In practice, an applicant in Uttar Pradesh ordinarily approaches the Sessions Court first, and explains in the High Court application why the High Court should be approached directly if he has not done so.

In Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P., decided on 7 August 2025, the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had refused to hear anticipatory bail applications and relegated the applicant to the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court held that both courts have concurrent jurisdiction, that it is not necessary for an accused to approach the Sessions Court in the first instance, and that the High Court must examine whether special circumstances exist in the particular case.

The wider question, whether the Sessions Court must ordinarily be approached first, is pending before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala (SLP (Crl.) No. 6588 of 2025), in which judgment was reserved in October 2026. Its decision may change the practice in all States, including Uttar Pradesh.

HOW LONG ANTICIPATORY BAIL LASTS

In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, decided on 29 January 2020, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the protection under Section 438 CrPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period, and that the life of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally when the accused is summoned by the court or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. The court may, however, limit the period or impose conditions where the facts of a particular case require it.

Anticipatory bail can also be sought after the charge-sheet has been filed. In Adil v. State of U.P., decided on 8 December 2020, the Allahabad High Court held that its power to grant anticipatory bail does not end with the submission of the charge-sheet and that an application can be entertained after the accused has been summoned on the charge-sheet.

WHEN ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS USUALLY REFUSED

Anticipatory bail is discretionary. Courts consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the applicant, his criminal antecedents, the possibility that he may flee or tamper with evidence, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely needed.

Conduct matters. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, decided on 14 March 2024, the Supreme Court held that an accused who has disobeyed warrants and absconded, so that a proclamation has been issued against him, is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail, and that the mere pendency of an anticipatory bail application, without any interim order, does not prevent the trial court from proceeding against him.

DOCUMENTS USUALLY NEEDED

An application is usually prepared with a copy of the FIR or complaint, any notice or summons received, the charge-sheet and summoning order if the case has reached that stage, any earlier bail orders including an order of the Sessions Court rejecting anticipatory bail, details of the applicant's criminal history, if any, and the facts that show why arrest is apprehended. Where the High Court is approached directly, the special circumstances relied upon should be set out clearly.

SUMMARY

Anticipatory bail is available in Uttar Pradesh under Section 482 of the BNSS, from either the Sessions Court or the Allahabad High Court. Single Judge decisions of the High Court hold that the exclusions added by the 2019 Uttar Pradesh amendment, including for NDPS, Gangsters Act and capital offences, do not apply under the BNSS, though the position remains open to a larger Bench or fresh legislation. The bars in Section 482(4) BNSS and in the SC/ST Act still apply. Protection, once granted, need not be limited in time, but an accused who has absconded is ordinarily not entitled to it. Whether the Sessions Court must be approached first is now before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

This article is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable law and the facts of each case should be examined before any action is taken.

Key Authorities Cited

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench), 2020-01-29, (2020) 5 SCC 1
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India — Supreme Court of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala — Supreme Court of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601
Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar — Supreme Court of India, 2024-03-14, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282
Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. — Supreme Court of India, 2025-08-07
Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court (Full Bench)
Adil v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court, 2020-12-08
Raman Sahni v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), 2025:AHC-LKO:34988
Abdul Hameed v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court, 2025:AHC:102975

Statutory Provisions

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 (direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest; corresponds to Section 438 CrPC)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 531 (repeal and savings)
Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019) — Section 438(6) as inserted in Uttar Pradesh (exclusions), in force from 6 June 2019
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 18 (exclusion of anticipatory bail)
Constitution of India — Article 254(2) (repugnancy between State and Parliamentary laws on Concurrent List subjects)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is anticipatory bail available in Uttar Pradesh?

Yes. It was restored in Uttar Pradesh with effect from 6 June 2019 and is now governed by Section 482 of the BNSS. An application can be made to the Sessions Court or the Allahabad High Court.

Can anticipatory bail be granted in an NDPS or Gangsters Act case in Uttar Pradesh?

The 2019 Uttar Pradesh amendment excluded such cases, but Single Judge decisions of the Allahabad High Court have held that those exclusions do not apply under Section 482 BNSS, so an application is maintainable. Whether it is granted depends on the facts, and the position should be checked at the time of filing.

Do I have to go to the Sessions Court before the Allahabad High Court?

Both courts have the power. The Allahabad High Court ordinarily expects special circumstances for a direct approach, and the Supreme Court held in Manjeet Singh (7 August 2025) that the High Court must consider whether such circumstances exist rather than refuse to hear the application. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on the wider question.

Does anticipatory bail end when the charge-sheet is filed?

Not ordinarily. In Sushila Aggarwal (2020), the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail need not be limited to a fixed period and can continue till the end of the trial, unless the court limits it for reasons in the particular case.

Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the SC/ST Act?

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars it, but the Supreme Court has held that the bar applies only where the complaint discloses a prima facie case under that Act. Where it does not, the court can consider anticipatory bail on its merits.

Can a person who has absconded get anticipatory bail?

Ordinarily not. The Supreme Court held in Srikant Upadhyay (14 March 2024) that an accused who has disobeyed warrants and absconded, leading to a proclamation, is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Sources & References

Practice area: Criminal cases at the Allahabad High Court: bail, anticipatory bail and quashing

Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, Shri Law Chambers. Practises before the Allahabad High Court in service and criminal matters; in practice since 1991. Enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 · Advocate-on-Record, Allahabad High Court · Allahabad High Court Bar Association · LL.B., Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad, 1990 · Former standing counsel: Government of India; Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Nagar; Fisheries Department (Matsya Palan Vibhag), Government of Uttar Pradesh.