Dismissed

Lata and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023ABAIL/2713/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed directly under Section 438 Cr.P.C. citing lack of special circumstances and non-compliance with the procedure established in Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P., as no strong foundation existed to invoke High Court jurisdiction without SESSION Judge rejection.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; interim order vacated.

Lata and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2713 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Lata And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants to press this application. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶5

The applicant has filed present application invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that they reasonably apprehend their arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered as Case Crime No.287 of 2020, under Sections 195, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Nawabganj, DistrictFarrukhabad.

¶6

Perusal of the record goes to show that the applicant no.2 had already been arrested and protection was granted to the other applicants i.e. applicant nos.1, 3 and 4.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. points out that the applicants have approached this Court directly without approaching the Session Judge, which is not in consonance of Judgement rendered in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. & Another.

¶8

A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB) , has clearly held that special circumstances must necessarily exist and be established, and the application must rest on a strong foundation to invoke concurrent jurisdiction of this Court directly; without rejection by the court below.

¶9

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I find that the reasons assigned for approaching this Court directly for anticipatory bail are not at all convincing extraordinary and special, as such, this anticipatory bail application is rejected leaving it open to the applicant to take recourse to the remedy available under law.

¶10

Interim order, if any, stands vacated .

¶11

It is open to the Court/authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

¶12

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to inform about this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance, forthwith.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.1.2023/Rahul.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lata and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lata and 3 Others 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

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P.

Tahsin Begum and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ranjana and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shivkant Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Rehana @ Riya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.