Rajesh Kumar Aarakshi _ 252 vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7292 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4694 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Aarakshi _ 252
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sabhajeet Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. This Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

2. Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, has not responded to the video link. On the last date also he was not responded. Learned A.G.A. for State appears.

3. Applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 300 of 2019, under Sections 420, 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

4. Learned A.G.A. appearing for State submitted that charge sheet has already been filed on 20.03.2019 and applicant has approached this Court at the first instance without approaching Trial Court. It is also pointed out that in the entire application there is no averment with regard to existence of any special circumstances.

5. The Full Bench of this High Court in Ankit Bharati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another etc. etc. 2020 (3) ADJ (FB) has settled the issue on 'High Court being approached first' that notwithstanding the concurrent jurisdiction, strong, cogent, compelling reasons and special circumstances must necessarily found to exist in justification of the High Court being approached first without the avenue as available before the Court of Session being exhausted, to be evaluated by the Judge on a due evaluation of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Some circumstances which may constitute special circumstances are:- (a) where bail, regular or anticipatory of a co-accused has already been rejected by the Court of Session; (b) where an accused not residing within the jurisdictions of the concerned Sessions Court faces a threat of arrest; (c) where circumstances warrant immediate protection and where relegation to the Sessions Court would not sub serve justice; (d) where time and situation constraints warrant immediate intervention.

6. I have perused the contents of the application. Applicant has approached this Court at the first instance and there is no averment with regard to existence of any special circumstance to entertain this application at the first instance before this Court without approaching the Trial Court. The application is not based on concrete facts rather they are vague in nature.

7. In view of aforesaid judgment of Full Bench as also considering the fact that charge sheet has already been filed way back on 20.03.2019 and there is no special circumstances for applicant to approach this Court at the first instance, I find no ground to exercise discretion of this Court for granting anticipatory bail.

8. The application is accordingly dismissed.

9. However, it is made clear that this order would not come in the way, in case applicant approaches the concerned Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Order Date :- 8.7.2021

AK