Mohd. Nazim and Another v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In this appeal filed under Section 438 CrPC, the applicant approached the High Court directly for anticipatory bail without first approaching the Sessions Court. The court found no compelling circumstances to exercise jurisdiction directly and noted the withdrawal of the application.
What did the court decide?
Application rejected as withdrawn with liberty to approach the concerned court of Sessions.
What the court decided
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13338 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd. Nazim And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Case called out in revised list. None appeared to press this application.
Learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of State is present.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants, directly before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0346 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Saraimamrej, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the investigation.
The Full Bench consisting five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB) has cleared the smog on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction for approaching at the first instant for anticipatory bail before High Court or Session Court and held that there must be compelling or special circumstances entitling a party to directly approach the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
In the light of above mentioned legal position, first of all this Court has to determine whether the applicants, who approached this Court directly seeking anticipatory bail have made out a case of compelling or special circumstances for entertaining this application.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants could directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail without exhausting the remedy of approaching the Sessions Court due to the absence of compelling or special circumst
Whether the applicants have shown a ground to bypass the Sessions Court as per the Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti case.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mohd. Nazim and Another
Coram
Deepak Verma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/13338/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court