Dismissed

Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2021ABAIL/5917/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. finding that the applicants failed to establish any compelling or special circumstances to justify a direct approach to the High Court instead of the Court of Sessions during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed on grounds of non-existence of compelling or special circumstances; applicants directed to approach Court of Sessions.

Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5917 of 2021 Applicant :- Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Chitranshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ashish Chitranshi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

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.- 57 of 2021, under Sections- 376/313 IPC, Police StationSubhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.6.2021 Shekhar

Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit 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

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Azam @ Aazeem Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P.