The Single Judge rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as withdrawn by the applicant. The court held that no compelling circumstances existed to invoke High Court jurisdiction directly, citing Ankit Bharti.
Application rejected as withdrawn with liberty to approach the concerned Court of Sessions.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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8676 of 2021
Applicant :- Azad Miyan @ Munna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hasan Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar,Vikas Rana
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.
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. 0684 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 386, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Prem Nagar, district Bareilly, 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, 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 :- 4.12.2021 Meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compelling or special circumstances exist to permit direct approach to the High Court for anticipatory bail without exhausting remedies before the Sessions Court.
Whether to allow the anticipatory bail application which was withdrawn by the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶7
2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Azad Miyan @ Munna
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
