Dismissed

Bhupendra Bahradwaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2021ABAIL/17092/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail directly from the High Court in a criminal case. Citing Ankit Bharti, the Court held that such direct approach requires compelling circumstances. As none were shown, the application was rejected and the applicant was directed to approach the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

Bhupendra Bahradwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17092 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bhupendra Bahradwaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Case called out in revised list. None appeared to press this application.

¶6

From perusal of record, it appears that on the last occasion counsel for the applicant was also not present in revised list.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informed that applicant has not approached before the court below.

¶8

Present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant, directly before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2021, under Sections 380, 354, 386, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶9

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.

¶10

In the light of above mentioned legal position, first of all this Court has to determine whether the applicant, who approached this Court directly seeking anticipatory bail has made out a case of compelling or special circumstances for entertaining this application.

¶11

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

¶12

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 exhausted.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Meenu

Bhupendra Bahradwaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Bahradwaj v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Gopal Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh @ Munna Vs State of U.P.

Suresh @ Bijli Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Machhla and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P and Another