The single judge dismissed the anticipatory bail application. Finding no special circumstances warranting direct High Court intervention, the court denied jurisdiction and directed the applicant to approach the Sessions Court.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed; 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. - 5697 of 2021
Applicant :- Sahil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant directly before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.22 of 2021, under Sections- 376, 307, 147, 342, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the investigation.
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 applicant 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, 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.
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 applicant to approach the concerned Court of Sessions.
Order Date :- 1.6.2021 V.S.Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant established compelling or special circumstances to directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail instead of the Court of Sessions.
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.)
Sahil
State of U.P.
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
