Allahabad High Court
Snehdeep Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90978 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7861 of 2023 Applicant :- Snehdeep Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.590 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, the present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant -Snehdeep Pandey seeking anticipatory bail.
2. 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.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that in the present matter, anticipatory bail application no.3922 of 2022 was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 23.9.2022 and subsequently the applicant approached the High Court and in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.10632 of 2022, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 19.12.2022. It is further submitted that now the charge-sheet in this matter has been submitted. The liberty of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the applicant was never misused by him and he has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is also submitted that the divorce petition between the applicant and his wife, the informant, is still pending and as a counter blast thereof, the present F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant only to harass him subsequent to the divorce petition. The applicant is a reputed person and has respect in the society. It is further submitted that the mediation proceeding also took place between the parties, but it failed. It is also submitted that Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.713 of 2022 was also preferred in this matter and an interim protection was granted by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2022, but with the filing of the charge-sheet in this matter, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 1.8.2022. It is further submitted that the statement of the applicant under section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet in this matter has already been submitted. It is further submitted that the co-accused in this case, the parents of the applicant, have been granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Applications No.10644 of 2022 and 10630 of 2022 respectively by this Court vide order dated 9.12.2022 till the conclusion of trial. It is also submitted that now the arrest or custodial interrogation from the applicant is not required. It is also submitted that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without filing any anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court as it was not required in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail and he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and it has been contended that without moving any anticipatory bail application to the Court of Sessions after submission of the charge-sheet, such application has been moved straightway to the High Court in violation of the settled law and the application in itself is not maintainable on this very ground. It is also submitted that after collecting ample and cogent evidence against the applicant, charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and considering the gravity and nature of the offence, accused applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail any further. Hence a prayer has been made to reject the anticipatory bail application.
5. The core issue in this matter, which was raised in the submissions made by the learned counsels of both the sides, is that whether the accused applicant was required to move anticipatory bail application after submission of the charge-sheet before the Court of Sessions or he could straightway approach this Court for grant of anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial after submission of charge-sheet.
6. The law as to whether an accused person can approach the High Court directly for grant of anticipatory bail in his favour has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.) wherein it has been held that in exceptional and special circumstances, an accused can move anticipatory bail application before the High Court directly.
7. In Harendra Singh vs. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 4571 [Criminal Misc. Application No.6478 of 2019 (Bail)], a coordinate Bench of this Court held like this :
"21. It is worth to note here that whenever the concurrent jurisdiction is vested under the statute simultaneously in two courts of one is superior to the other, then it is appropriate that the party should apply to the subordinate Court first, because the higher Court would have the advantage of considering the opinion of the Sessions Court. Moreover, the party will get two opportunities to get the remedy either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court but if once he approaches the High Court, he would run the risk that, the other remedy is not available to him if he failed to get the order in the High Court, he cannot go before the Sessions Court for the same remedy. However, vice versa is possible."
8. The issue can be summed up keeping in view that no exceptional or special circumstance exists in favour of the accused applicant to entitle him to move anticipatory bail application directly to the High Court after submission of the charge-sheet. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that if anticipatory bail application is moved by him before the Court of Sessions it will certainly be rejected as at the pre-cognizance stage such application moved by him was already rejected by the Sessions Court may not be true in all the circumstances. The Session Court is not debarred to grant anticipatory bail to an accused after submission of charge-sheet and even after taking congnizance of the matter by the concerned Court, now it is a trite law.
9. In view of that, the present anticipatory bail application is held to be not maintainable before this Court and the accused applicant is directed to move the application for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage before the Court of Sessions itself. In case it is rejected by the Court of Sessions, the accused applicant certainly is at liberty to move application for the same relief before this Court.
10. With this observation, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024 ss