Avinash Singh @ Dheeru Singh v. State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175895

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10068 of 2023

Applicant :- Avinash Singh @ Dheeru Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anjeet 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 and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant - Avinash Singh @ Dheeru Singh directly before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. - 780 of 2020, under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Manjhanpur, district-Kaushambi.

3. At the very outset 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. This anticipatory bail application has been filed directly without any rejection order by the concerned Session court and reason thereof has been disclosed in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit that since non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, the applicant has approached this Court directly.

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. The reason disclosed in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit does not come within the category of a special reason / circumstance under which the applicant may be permitted to move anticipatory bail application directly to this High Court.

7. In the light of the above mentioned legal position, I find that in

1

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 Sessions.

8. 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.

9. The Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, rejected, as not maintainable at this stage.

10. However, the applicant may move an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court concerned as per law.

Order Date :- 6.9.2023 Faridul

2