Neelendra Pandey vs The State Of U.P. And Others.
1998 Latest Caselaw 376 Del

ORDER

A.K. Srivastava, J.

1. This petition is under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to "the Code") for grant of anticipatory bail. The offence alleged relates to FIR No. 293/97 filed at police station Kaiser-

bagh, Lucknow (U.P.) under Sections 307, 302 and 120-B IPC. Admittedly, process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow by order dated 6.8.1997 against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 438 of the Code before the Sessions Judge, Delhi. An interim transit anticipatory bail had been granted to the petitioner for moving bail application before the court of Sessions at Lucknow but the petitioner did not appear before the concerned court and the interim transit anticipatory bail was extended by Shri S.M.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 9.2.1998. Even during the extended period the petitioner did not approach the concerned court at Lucknow and requested the Additional Sessions Judge Shri Raghubir Singh to confirm the anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected confirmation and rejected the application for anticipatory bail vide order dated 4.3.1998. Feeling aggrieved with that order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court which was registered as Cr.R.No.90/98. When this revision petition was taken up by this Court on 9.3.1998, learned counsel for revisionist made a request that this revision petition be treated as a petition under Section 438 of the Code. Accordingly , the Registry was directed to register the petition as a petition under Section 438 of the Code.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, on, instructions from the IO. submitted that the investigation was complete and the charge - sheet would be filed soon. He also submitted that the investigation has evidence to prove that the petitioner is involved in the alleged crime and he is going to be charge-sheeted.

4. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Senior Advocate vehemently urged before me that since the petitioner has been residing in Delhi for the last about a year and his life is in danger in the State of Uttar Pradesh , he be granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

5. I have carefully considered the pleas of the petitioner and the arguments advanced by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad. The petitioner was given enough opportunity with interim anticipatory bail to approach the concerned court at Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh but he did not avail the opportunity. Seeing to the nature of th alleged offence, I am not inclined to give relief to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code. The petitioner should submit to the jurisdiction of the concerned court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Lucknow and be subject to the orders thereof.