Allahabad High Court
Shashikant Sharma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 August, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7325 of 2022 Applicant :- Shashikant Sharma And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 218 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention And Atrocities) Act, P.S. Sahpau, District Hathras with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have pointed out that the applicants have approached this Court directly without exhausting their remedy before the court of sessions.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have filed a criminal appeal before this Court against the cognizance order, whereby by order dated 02.08.2022, it was observed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court that pendency of the said appeal will not preclude the rights of applicants to file bail application/anticipatory bail application in accordance with law. It was further submitted that there is no such legal mandate that applicants have necessarily to file an application for anticipatory bail before the concerned court of Session, before approaching this Court for anticipatory bail.
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 held that there must be compelling or special circumstances entitling a party to directly approach the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
In the instant matter, after perusing the record, this Court does not find any compelling or special circumstances so as to approach this Court directly by bypassing the Court of Session. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the instant application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage before this Court. The applicants are given liberty to move an appropriate application before the Court concerned in accordance with law. In case such an application is filed, the same shall be dealt with expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022 Anand