This court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed directly before it because the applicants failed to demonstrate compelling or special circumstances warranting the high court's direct jurisdiction, requiring them to approach the court of sessions first.
Application dismissed with liberty to approach the Court of Sessions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5655 of 2021
Applicant :- Shahjad And 7 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
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.- 0221 of 2020, under Sections- 498A, 325, 328, 504, 323, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 1.6.2021 V.S.Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have made out a case of compelling or special circumstances to approach the High Court directly for anticipatory bail without exhausting the remedy of the Session Court.
Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked directly in the absence of special circumstances under the precedent Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶7
Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahjad And 7 Others
State of U.P.
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
