Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117662
Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4463 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunny Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakant
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants- 1. Sunny Kumar, 2. Vipul Gautam and 3. Mayank before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. - 0063 of 2023, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Mirzapur.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that if the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest any time.
4. It was brought to the notice of this Court that without having any rejection order from the Sessions Court, this anticipatory bail application has been directly filed before this Court and no specific reason has been mentioned in this application.
5. The Full Bench consisting five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.) has discussed 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.
6. In the light of the above mentioned legal position, I find that in the instant anticipatory bail application, applicants have not mentioned any compelling or special circumstance to approach
1
this Court directly without having any rejection order from the Court of Session.
7. In view of that, in the opinion of this Court, no compelling or special circumstances exist in the present case warranting the jurisdiction of this Court being invoked directly without having any rejection order from the Court of Sessions. Prayer made in the application is refused.
8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Fhd
2