Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157951
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8416 of 2023
Applicant :- Krishna Kant Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant - Krishna Kant Yadav directly before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. - 225 of 2021, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 1 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station- Tarayasujan, District- Kushi Nagar.
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in paragraph 14 of the affidavit annexed to the anticipatory bail application, the special circumstances have been explained to move directly before this Court for anticipatory bail, however, after perusal of the paragraph 14 of the affidavit, I do not find any special reason to move this anticipatory bail application directly before the High Court.
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.
1
6. In the light of the above mentioned legal position, I find that in the instant anticipatory bail application, applicant has not mentioned any compelling or special circumstance to approach 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, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, the applicant may file anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court as per law.
Order Date :- 7.8.2023 Fhd
2