Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2020
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1044 of 2020 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Sri Kranti Kiran Pandey, learned Advocate, has file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kranti Kiran Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri A.R.Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of present 438 Cr.P.C. application,the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.891 of 2019, under Sections 364, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and pointed out that the applicants have directly approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail without approaching the Court of Session. On a pointed query made from learned counsel for the applicants he states that he has disclosed the reason for directly approaching this Court in paragraph no.2 of the anticipatory bail application, which is reproduced here-in-below:-
"2. That the present Criminal Misc. (Anticipatory) Bail Application is being filed by the appellants before this Hon'ble Court because the deponent is apprehending to arrest by local police an accusation as a non-bailable offence in the First Information Report dated 12.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No.891 of 2019, under Sections 364, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot, under which the arrest is apprehended."
I am of the considered opinion that to entertain an anticipatory bail application of the accused directly to this Court, there should be compelling special circumstance or special reason apart of other reasons to show that even the counsel for the accused/applicants has no or limited access to the Court of Session for filing anticipatory bail application or is out of reach meaning thereby that the working of the Court below is paralyzed or the normal life of the city is so disturbed that neither accused nor his counsel could reach the Court of Session for filing anticipatory bail application, any such other similar situation or any other unapproachable or unavoidable situation. Moreover, the object with which the legislature has conferred concurrent power to Court of Session under Section 438 Cr.P.C. along with High Court would not be meaningful if the accused is allowed to approach to this Court directly in routine manner for anticipatory bail.
Even the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Onkar Nath Agrawal and others. Vs. State reported in 1976 (2)ALR 149 and 1976 Crl. L.J.1142 has therefore, left open to the Judge to exercise his discretion for entertaining the anticipatory bail application directly to High Court according to exigencies of each case. The relevant paragraph nos.8 and 12 of the said judgement in this regard are to be taken note of which are reproduced here-in-below:-
"8. It may, however, be mentioned that inasmuch as Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives a discretionary power to grant bail, this discretion is to be exercised according to the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be cases in which it may be considered by the High Court to be proper to entertain an application without the applicant having moved the Court of Session initially. Similarly there may be cases in which the Court may feel justified in asking the applicant to move the Sessions Court or to refer the matter to that Court. In any case all depends upon the discretion of the judge hearing the case.
12. We are, therefore, of the view that the Courts should have an unfettered discretion in the matter of bail under Section 438, Criminal P. C. to be exercised according to the exigencies of each case.
The reason referred above by the applicants for directly approaching this Court with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail is not at all convincing as the same cannot be said to be a special circumstance or special reason or any such situation which may compel this Court to exercise it's discretion to entertain the present application for anticipatory bail directly without availing the remedy before the Court of Session in the present case.
Thus the application is, accordingly, rejected on this ground alone with liberty to approach the Court of Session first for anticipatory bail in the present case.
Order Date :- 29.1.2020 NS