Disposed

Jagriti Rahi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021ABAIL/4933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed anticipatory bail application without substantive exercise of power. Court directed applicants to surrender and file bail applications before Sessions Court by August 15, 2021, ensuring same-day hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed applicants to surrender and file bail applications in subordinate court by August 15, 2021; no coercive measures till then.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4933 of 2021 Applicant :- Jagriti Rahi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

(1) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶5

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicants namely, Jagriti Rahi and Anoop Shramik @ Anoop Kumar invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he/they has every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.009 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 332, 353, 336, 114, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of Public Property Damaging Act, Police Station- Chawk, DistrictVaranasi.

¶6

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightway without getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions.

¶7

(4) 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 2019), which read thus :

¶8

" (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. "

¶9

(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant/applicants has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein

¶10

are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.

¶11

(6) 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.

¶12

(7) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the police after investigation has submitted charge sheet in the matter way back on 23.6.2020 against 25 persons including the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court regarding sufficiency/insufficiency of the material collected during investigation by the police. At this juncture, the Court is feeling shy in appreciating this argument and evaluating the material on record. I am not inclined to exercise power u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

(8) Learned counsel for the applicants strenuously urged that the interest of the applicants would suffice if a direction would be given by this Court to the concerned court below to consider the bail application of the applicants on the same day.

¶14

(9) Since the applicants are chargesheeted accused but the applicant no.1 Jagriti Rahi is a lady. It is directed that if the applicant no.1 surrenders before the court below and applies for bail on or before 15th August, 2021, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below on the same day.

¶15

(10) So far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, if he surrenders and applies for bail before the court below on or before 15th August, 2021, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the court below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702.

¶16

(11) Till 15th August, 2021 or till surrender of applicants before the court below, no coercive measures shall be taken against them.

¶17

(12) With the aforesaid observation the present application stands disposed off.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 M. Kumar

Jagriti Rahi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagriti Rahi and Another 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

Sarvesh Devi Vs State of U.P.

Devicharan Vs State of U.P.

Madan Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Singh @ Shani Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sharik Quraishi Kasai Vs State of U.P and Another

Ajeet Yadav Vs State of Up