Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:171476
Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9030 of 2024
Applicant :- Vishnu Chaudhari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar,Vijay Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Sharma
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.
2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS has been moved by the applicant, directly before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) BNS, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Mathura, during pendency of the investigation.
3. The Full Bench consisting five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2020
(3) ADJ 575 (FB) has cleared the smog 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.
4. In the light of above mentioned legal position, first of all this Court has to determine whether the applicant, who approached this Court directly seeking anticipatory bail has made out a case of compelling or special circumstances for entertaining this application.
5. After perusing the entire record, I find that in the instant anticipatory bail application, applicant has not mentioned any compelling or special circumstance to approach this Court directly without the avenue as available before the court of sessions being
1
exhausted.
6. In view of above, 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 the avenue as available before the court of sessions being exhausted.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant does not want to press the present anticipatory bail application and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the court concerned.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer of the counsel for the applicant.
9. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to approach the concerned court of Sessions.
Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Meenu Singh
2