Allowed

Rohit Singhal @ Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021ABAIL/7414/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court held that while the applicant should approach the proper forum to challenge the Magistrate's order on §66A IT Act, the Ante-Bail is granted to prevent arrest until that application is made. Direct approach to High Court was accepted based on specific reasons.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant directed not to be arrested for one month or till proper proceedings invoked.

Rohit Singhal @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7414 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit Singhal @ Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard Shri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶6

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in Criminal Case No.114 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no.1055 of 2019, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 66-A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur.

¶7

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions.

¶8

(4) Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :

¶9

" (7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session. "

¶10

(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application

¶11

before this Court itself.

¶12

(6) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶13

(7) Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that after the investigation the police has submitted report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. against the applicant u/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 66-A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 , by which the Section 66A of I.T. Act was struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that without application of mind and oblivion to the legal proposition the learned Magistrate vide order dated 01.2.2021 has taken cognizance of the offence, which is per se bad in the eyes of law.

¶14

(8) The aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is precise legal question to be adjudicated upon but at a different forum. This is not the appropriate forum where this matter could be adjudicated upon. If so advised, learned counsel for the applicant may invoke proper remedy under suitable sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure before appropriate forum.

¶15

(9) Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a month.

¶16

(10) Till the said proceedings are initiated by the applicant or till one month from today, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall not be arrested in aforesaid case crime.

¶17

(11) With the aforesaid direction the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed off.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.9.2021 M. Kumar

Rohit Singhal @ Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singhal @ Monu 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

Sushant Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diggu Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamlal Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Neelam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankush Nagpal @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Alim Raza Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others