In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court rejected the plea of applicants Munni and Deep Chand, holding that they approached the Court straightaway without exhausting the remedy at the Court of Session first, despite available statutory provisions and procedural orders allowing direct approach under specific circumstances.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11865 of 2021
Applicant :- Munni And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Shukla,Krishna Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. the applicants namely Munni and Deep Chand who are apprehending their arrest are seeking their anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.270 of 2020, under Sections 325, 308 IPC, P.S. -Naujheel, District- Mathura.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants haved approached this Court straightaway without their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read thus :
" (7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session. "
After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that initially the F.I.R. was got registered u/s 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and in these sections the applicants were admitted on anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8213 of 2020. After the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet adding sections 323, 308 I.P.C. Hence the present anticipatory bail application.
The applicant has wrongly approached invoking jurisdiction u/s 438 Cr.P.C. It is open for the applicant to invoke an appropriate remedy provided to him under the law. Under circumstances, the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED .
Order Date :- 19.7.2021 M. Kumar
Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.21 15:59:37 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an applicant can approach the High Court directly for anticipatory bail without first approaching the Court of Session?
Whether the High Court should grant anticipatory bail in a case where the applicant approached the High Court despite having no valid grounds under Section 438 Cr.P.C.?
Munni And Another
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
