Dismissed

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2021ABAIL/17977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed directly without exhausting remedies at the Sessions Court, finding no special circumstances. The application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected as withdrawn; liberty to file before Court of Sessions.

Vinod Kumar and Another 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. - 17977 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rewti Raman Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and 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, Vinod Kumar & Sanny directly before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 1651 of 2021, under Sections 363 & 366 IPC, police station Kotwali Dehat, district Bulandshahar, during the pendency of the 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 has 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 exhausted.

¶11

Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the

¶12

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 :- 6.12.2021/SKD

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and Another 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

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Azad Miyan @ Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raju Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Jam Jam Raza Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another