Abhishek Soni @ Abhishek Swarnkar v. State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188701

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10510 of 2023

Applicant :- Abhishek Soni @ Abhishek Swarnkar

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwani Kumar Mishra

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 - Abhishek Soni @ Abhishek Swarnkar directly before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. - 15 of 2020, under Sections 392, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Jalaun, District - Jalaun.

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. In paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit it has been so mentioned :

"2. That applicant has filed Anticipatory Bail Application directly without filing before Courts below due to issuing N.B.W. and process Under section 82 Cr.P.C. in the proceeding of Complaint No. 15 of 2020 Under section 392, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Jalaun, District Jalaun although already proceeding had been stayed vide order dated 12.3.2021 in the Criminal Misc. Application (482) No. 18952 of 2021 latter on not extended and issued aforesaid process."

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

1

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 2 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 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.

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 :- 27.9.2023 ss

2