Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 15517 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1797 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sadhu Saran Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant directly before this court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0393 of 2022, under Sections 323, 377, 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad.

At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the judgment of Larger Bench consisting five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (3) A.D.J. 575 (F.B.), this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

The Larger Bench (Supra) has cleared 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.

In the light of above mentioned legal position, first of all, this Court has to determine whether the applicant who has approached this court directly seeking anticipatory bail, has made out a case of compelling or special circumstances for entertaining this application.

After perusing the entire record, I find that in the instant anticipatory bail application, the 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.

In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, no compelling or special circumstances exists 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.

Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, with liberty to the applicant to approach the concerned Court of Sessions.

Order Date :- 1.11.2022

Shubham