Dismissed

Dilshad and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2021ABAIL/5650/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because the applicants failed to establish compelling or special circumstances to bypass the Session Court, relying on the Full Bench in Ankit Bharti. The matter was dismissed with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without expressing opinion on merits; liberty to approach Sessions Court.

Dilshad and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5650 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dilshad And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Janardan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant and perused the record.

¶6

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.- 191 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Mubarakpur, District- Azamgarh.

¶7

The Full Bench consisting five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.) has cleared 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 the 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

Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits of the case with liberty to the applicants to approach the concerned Court of Sessions.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.6.2021 V.S.Singh

Dilshad and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilshad and 9 Others 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

Smt. Neelam Singh Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhananjay Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aftab Shah Vs State of U.P.

Shahjad and 7 Other Vs State of U.P.

Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhopal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another