Transit anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for a cheque-dishonour complaint in Chandigarh. Court found the application was a repeated, jurisdictionally improper attempt amounting to forum shopping and misuse of process, exercising restraint on costs but rejecting the bail application as devoid of merit.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167916
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9981 of 2024
Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Yadav,Devbratt Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Complaint Case No.390 of 2019, Computer Case No.UKUS060008252019, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge II- 7, Kashipur, District
Uddham Singh Nagar, U.K.
4. After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .
5. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for interference U/s 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within one month from today and in case a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
7. For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case."
termed as a disreputable practice.
Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether transit anticipatory bail should be granted for a Section 138 NI Act complaint pending in Chandigarh.
Whether the applicant's repeated anticipatory bail applications across jurisdictions constitute forum shopping.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and AnotherReferred
(2022) 10 SCC 51 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. Cipla Limited and AnotherRelied on
(2017) 5 SCC 262 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
