Raman Sahni vs State of UP (2025) | Anticipatory bail under BNSS restored – Allahabad High Court verdict

Raman Sahni vs State of UP (2025): Allahabad High Court restores anticipatory bail under BNSS

Introduction:

The case revolved around the important issue of anticipatory bail in Uttar Pradesh (UP), particularly in the light of the Indian Civil Protection Code, 2023 (BNSS), which came into force replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant, Raman Sahni, approached the court seeking protection from arrest in a criminal case registered under the Gangsters Act.

The case is important as it addresses the implications of the UP Amendment Act, 2019, which had curtailed the right to anticipatory bail in the state and how its legal status changed after the implementation of the BNSS.

Case details:

• Raman Sahni vs State of Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary Home Department, Lucknow
• Court: Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
• Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1710/2024
• Date of Judgment: 28 May 2025
• Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:33260
• Judge: Hon'ble Justice Shri Prakash Singh

Background of the case:

Facts of the case,

• Raman Sahni feared arrest in a case registered under the Gangsters Act, 1986. This is a stringent law designed to deal with organised crime and habitual offenders.
• He filed an application under Section 438 of CrPC for anticipatory bail.
• However, the UP Amendment Act, 2019 had removed the applicability of Section 438 of CrPC in Uttar Pradesh.
• The central legal issue was whether the provisions of the BNSS, 2023, which re-introduced anticipatory bail, would nullify the amendment made in 2019 by the State of UP.

Legal issues involved:

(1) Whether Section 438 (anticipatory bail) of CrPC will be applicable in Uttar Pradesh after BNSS 2023.

(2) Whether the UP Amendment Act, 2019 will remain effective after the repeal of CrPC.

(3) Interpretation of legislative powers between the State and the Union with regard to procedural criminal law.

(4) Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case registered under the Gangster Act.

Advanced Reasoning

For Applicant (Raman Sahni):

(1) Constitutional supremacy: The BNSS is a central law that overrides state amendments in the event of a conflict.

(2) Doctrine of Repeal: The CrPC, 1973 was repealed by the BNSS, 2023, and with it, state amendments ceased to have any operative effect, unless they were specifically reintroduced.

(3) Fundamental Rights: Denial of anticipatory bail violates Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to life and personal liberty.

For the state:

(1) Legislative competence: The State argued that since law and order is a state subject, it has the legislative competence to amend the CrPC in its domain.

(2) Continuity of law: They argued that the 2019 amendment will continue to be in force unless it is specifically repealed by a competent authority.

(3) Nature of offence: The gravity of the offence (Gangster Act) justifies denial of anticipatory bail.

Observations of the Court:

(1) On BNSS circumventing CrPC and state amendments: The court clarified that with the repeal of CrPC, 1973, any amendments made to that law – such as the UP Amendment Act, 2019 – will also cease to have effect, unless they are reintroduced under the new framework.

(2) Supremacy of BNSS Concurrent List of BNSS Constitution: A central law falls under List III, Schedule VII, which means both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on the subject. However, Article 254(1) of the Constitution clearly states that if there is any inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the states, the law made by Parliament shall prevail.

(3) Fundamental rights and bail jurisprudence: The court reiterated that anticipatory bail is a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and should be interpreted liberally. A blanket denial of such relief, particularly when provided for in a central law, would be unconstitutional.

(4) Application of BNSS: The newly enacted BNSS provides for anticipatory bail, and its provisions are applicable in Uttar Pradesh. Repealing the CrPC nullifies the 2019 state amendment, thus restoring the right of a citizen in Uttar Pradesh to seek anticipatory bail.

cataclysm:

The court, while accepting the anticipatory bail plea of Raman Sahni, said that,

• The 2019 UP Amendment will no longer be applicable after the enactment of the BNSS.
• The applicant should be protected from arrest, especially when the new central law provides such relief.
• The Gangsters Act, though severe, does not automatically prevent the court from considering anticipatory bail.
• A balance must be maintained between social interest and individual liberty.

Legal effect and significance: 

This decision is a milestone in the evolving bail jurisprudence in India, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, where denial of anticipatory bail was a significant legal hurdle for many years. It is notable for the following reasons:

• After years of legal uncertainty, this case clarifies that advance : Anticipatory bail is now legally permissible in Uttar Pradesh, bringing the state in line with the rest of the country.
• The first major amendment to the BNSS is the Indian Civil Defence Code, 2023 : It is one of the first High Court decisions to interpret and apply it, providing valuable guidance for future cases.
• Re-enunciation of Article 21 : It strengthens the jurisprudence surrounding individual liberties and strengthens the role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights against overbroad legislative actions.

Comparative Jurisprudence:

Other Indian states such as Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Haryana had also restricted anticipatory bail through state amendments, but most such provisions were subject to constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court in “Sushila Agarwal v State (NCT of Delhi)” (2020) upheld the view that anticipatory bail is part of the constitutional guarantee of liberty.

In light of BNSS, many of these state-specific restrictions will be struck down or repealed due to conflicts with central legislation.

Criticism and challenges ahead:

Although the decision is progressive, it has also been criticised and may lead to future legal battles:

• Implementation of BNSS: The transition from CrPC to BNSS poses several logical and legal interpretation challenges to the judiciary.
• Ambiguity of role of State versus Centre: The case highlights the ongoing debate about legislative competence and the need for a clear demarcation of powers.
• Impact on police powers: Without a ban on anticipatory bail in specific laws, law enforcement agencies may face hurdles in dealing with habitual offenders.

Conclusion: The case of Raman Sawhney v State of UP marks a turning point in the criminal procedural framework of UP. By restoring anticipatory bail through judicial interpretation of the BNSS, 2023, the High Court reaffirmed the supremacy of constitutional principles over regional legislative anomalies.

The case will be cited in future legal battles involving conflicts between state amendments and central legislation, and in broader discussions around judicial activism, federalism, and individual liberty.