Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application filed by Sarvesh Dei in a liquor raid case. Court held applicant exploited direct route and granted freedom to investigation officer.
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. - 13129 of 2021
Applicant :- Sarvesh Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicant, Sarvesh Devi is seeking her anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0049 of 2021, u/s 420, 353 IPC, 1860 and 60, 63 of the United Provinces Excises Act, 1910, P.S. Madhogarh, District Jalaun.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightaway without her 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 her 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.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and all the named accused persons were
transporting illegal liquor from M.P. to rural area of Jalaun and when the opposite party no. 2 had raided there, a huge quantity of illegal liquor have been recovered. The applicant has actively participated in the commission of the offence.
Under the circumstances, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation.
Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED .
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 Nisha
Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.30 17:23:41 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant can approach the High Court straightaway for anticipatory bail without first approaching the Court of Session.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarvesh Devi
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
