Ram Gopal & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7393 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7024 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Gopal & Anr.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh,Pradeep Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant who is an accused in F.I.R. No. 233 of 2021, Under Section 365 I.P.C., Police Station - Fatehpur, District - Barabnaki.

3. Learned A.G.A., at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection that a five Judges' Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1094 of 2020 along with other matters have clearly dealt with this aspect in great detail and only in certain conditions, it is stated that the anticipatory bail would be maintainable at the first instance before the High Court andthe anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C., at the first instance, should be preferred before the trial court and only then it should be filed before High Court while the applicant has approached High court directly and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant fairly submitted that he may be directed to approach the court below and the present application may be accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Undoubtedly, while interpreting the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. the Full Bench has relied upon the earlier orders of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019 (12) ADJ 495 and has also duly considered the recent judgment in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of State (NCT of Delhi) and others and have held that it is only when there exists a special or extraordinary circumstance, High Court can entertain an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. directly.

7. Perusing the material on record, I do not find any such circumstances necessitating interference which may persuade me from concluding that there are any extraordinary or special circumstances for which an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed directly before the High. Court.

8. Needless to say that the applicant has efficacious remedy before the trial court and in the said circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain present application.

9. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected with the liberty to approach appropriate court.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 9.7.2021

Ravi/