The applicant in an anticipatory bail application directly approached the High Court without exhausting remedies at the Sessions Court. The court found no compelling circumstances to justify the direct approach, noting the applicant subsequently withdrew the application.
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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6024 of 2021
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
List revised. Case called out. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Learned AGA for the State is present. Since last occasion case was listed on 04.06.2021, 28.07.2021 and 17.08.2021 applicant's counsel was not appeared to press this anticipatory bail application.
From perusal of records it transpires that present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant- Rakesh Kumar directly before this Court and without approaching Sessions Court, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2017, under Sections 138(B) of Indian Electric Act, 2003, Police Station Kuthaund, District Jalaun, during pendency of investigation.
The Full Bench consisting five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB) has cleared the 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 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.
Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant does not want to press the present anticipatory bail application and the same may be rejected as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the court concerned.
Learned Additional Government Advocate does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer of the counsel for the applicant.
This anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to approach the concerned court of Sessions.
Order Date :- 13.12.2021 Nitin Verma
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶7
2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB)
Rakesh Kumar
State of U.P.
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
