Dismissed

Deepak Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2021ABAIL/14777/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge rejected the anticipatory bail application as withdrawn. The court noted the applicants failed to establish special circumstances for approaching the High Court directly on one count, although the application was ultimately disposed of on withdrawal with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected as withdrawn with liberty to approach the concerned court of Sessions.

Deepak Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14777 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants, namely, Deepak Kumar Yadav, Anuj Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Patel and Vinod Kumar directly before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No.134 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act, Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj, during pendency of investigation.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

After perusing the entire record, I find that in the instant anticipatory bail application, applicants have not mentioned any compelling or special circumstance to approach this Court directly without the avenue as available before the court of sessions being exhausted.

¶10

In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, no compelling or special circumstances exist in the present case warranting the jurisdiction of this Court being invoked directly without the avenue as available before the court of sessions being

¶11

exhausted.

¶12

Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants do not want to press the present anticipatory bail application and the same may be rejected as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants to file an appropriate application before the court concerned.

¶13

Learned Additional Government Advocate does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer of the counsel for the applicants.

¶14

This anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants to approach the concerned court of Sessions.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Nitin Verma

Deepak Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kaumar Singh@ Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Hanif Qureshi @ Gattey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sameer @ Sageer Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Muzafar Urf Pacchar Vs State of U.P. and Another