Dismissed

Raman Verma v. State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022ABAIL/1354/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as no compelling or special circumstances were shown to justify approaching the High Court directly without exhausting remedies at the Sessions Court, relying on Ankit Bharti.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with liberty to approach the concerned court of Sessions.

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1354 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raman Verma

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

This second Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed in relation to First Information Report dated 25.02.2021 in Case Crime No.106 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶8

The first Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.16974 of 2021 was dismissed on 16.12.2021 on account of non-appearance of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Learned A.G.A has pointed out that the present anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the petitioner without approaching the court below.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

After perusing the entire record, I find that in the instant second 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of above, the present second anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the applicant to approach the concerned court of Sessions.

¶15

Order Date : - 8.3.2022 SKD

¶16

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.03.09 16:10:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raman Verma v. State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman Verma v. State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. 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

Shivjeet Vs Rampreet

Smt.Machhla and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P and Another

Rehan @ Rihan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nooruddin Vs State of U.P.

Imamuddin Vs State of U.P.