Allahabad High Court
Saheb Alam And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. on 23 January, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56434 of 2019 Applicant :- Saheb Alam And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.267 of 2019 under sections 498A, 323, 506, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Dholna, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that applicants have moved this Anticipatory Bail Application before this Court directly without approaching the Court of Sessions because of there being Special Circumstances that the applicants are being threatened to be arrested, hence there was no option left but to approach this Court to move this Application.
In the judgment passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53729 of 2019 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another), vide order dated 6.12.2019, wherein this court has laid down special circumstances in which applicant may approach this Court directly, which are as follows.:-
"The legal position which consequently emerges is that notwithstanding the concurrent jurisdiction being conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., strong, cogent, compelling reasons and special circumstances must necessarily be found to exist in justification of the High Court being approached first and without the avenue as available before the Court of Sessions being exhausted. Whether those factors are established or found to exist in the facts of a particular case must necessarily be left for the Court to consider in each case.
What would constitute "special circumstances" in light of the nature of the power conferred, must also be left to be gathered by the Judge on a due evaluation of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It would perhaps be imprudent to exhaustively chronicle what would be special circumstances. As noticed above, it would be impossible to either identify or compendiously propound what would constitute special circumstances. Sibbia spoke of the "imperfect awareness of the needs of new situations". It is this constraint which necessitates the Court leaving it to the wisdom of the Judge and the discretion vested in him by statute. Without committing the folly of attempting to exhaustively enunciate what would constitute special circumstances or being understood to have done so, the High Court would be justified in entertaining a petition directly in the following, amongst other, circumstances:-
(A) Where bail, regular or anticipatory, of a coaccused has already been rejected by the Court of Sessions; (B) Where an accused not residing within the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court faces a threat of arrest; (C) Where circumstances warrant immediate protection and where relegation to the Sessions Court would not subserve justice; (D) Where time or situational constraints warrant immediate intervention."
These and other relevant factors would clearly constitute special circumstances entitling a party to directly approach the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail."
In view of the above position of law, the said ground is not being found to be special circumstances to approach this Court directly, therefore, I find that there is no sufficient ground to entertain the present application directly in this Court. The present anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed with liberty to approach the Court of Sessions to seek anticipatory bail..
Order Date :- 23.1.2020 AU