Satyam Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178501

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10416 of 2023

Applicant :- Satyam Prajapati

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Bijendra Kumar Tripathi,Lokesh Kumar Mishra

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 - Satyam Prajapati directly before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. - 751 of 2022, under Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar.

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 moved before this Court.

4. 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.

5. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the the applicant has not mentioned as to what were the special reasons / circumstances under which the applicant has approached this Court and he may be permitted to move anticipatory bail application directly to this High Court.

6. 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 Session.

7. Hence, 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, as not maintainable at this stage.

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

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 safi

2