IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory bail application – Entertainment of an application directly by High Court is for consideration of Judge before whom petition is placed – There is no absolute bar that a person who has apprehension of arrest, cannot approach High Court directly rather this will depend on facts and circumstances of case.
(2) Power of a legislative body to repeal a law is co-extensive with its power to enact law.
(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019) passed by State Legislature would stand impliedly repealed.

JUDGMENT

Shree Prakash Singh, J.—Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Singh Vishen, Advocate; Sri V.K. Singh, G.A. assisted by Sri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, AGA-I assisted by Sri Vaibhav Srivastava, Sri Nirmal Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State; Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate, Amicus Curie, assisted by Sri Utsav Misra, Akber Ahmed, Madhur Jhavar, Maria Fatima, Alina, Chinmay Misra, Ravi Singh, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Ramendra Yadav, Shhriya Agarwal, Ahad, Ankit Tripathi (Advocates) and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2021, under sections- 2 and 3 of U.P. Gangster Act P.S.- Kotwali District – Sitapur.

3. At the very outset, the objection regarding the maintainability of the instant application are raised in two folds. One that the applicant has moved this application directly to this Court, which is not maintainable as per the law laid down in case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. anothers 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949 and secondly, in light of the provision of sub-section 6(a)(b) of section 438 of Cr.P.C. as amended by U.P. State legislature namely, U.P. State Amendment 2019, (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2018, U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019’) the benefit of provision of anticipatory bail is available in the matter pertaining to Gangster Act.

4. For summarising the issue, two questions can be formulated;

‘I. Whether, the anticipatory bail application could directly be filed before this Court, under the facts and circumstances of the present case?

II. Whether, in light of the repealment of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C. 1973’) and subsequently, the re-enactment of BNSS 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sanhita 2023’), the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019) with presidential assent, would stand repealed?

5. So long as the first objection is concerned, the plea has been taken by the applicant for not filing the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Sitapur, that the rival, Satyanaran and his family or involved in the business of Brick-lin and Transport and more than fifteen first information reports have been lodged against the applicant and and further the brother-in-law of the applicant namely, Anand in animosity, has also lodged several first information reports against him. It has also been stated that the opponent of the applicant being financially and politically powerful, is pressurizing the police officers and moreover, they are also affecting the judicial proceeding before the trial court. The next ground for directly approaching this Court is that there is threat to life to the applicant as there are acute enmity in between the parties and the applicant is not safe to approach the learned District and Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. On the aforesaid ground, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail application may directly be entertained by this Court.

6. The counsel for the opposite parties have contradicted and submitted that since, there is no special reason to approach this Court, directly, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

7. The settled law in case of Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. and another 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949 laid down the law while answering the reference. The reference answered by the full bench of this Court reads as under:-

“16. The Reference, in that sense, was clearly not merited. However and since we have heard parties not only on the question of maintainability of the Reference but also on the questions formulated for our consideration, we deem it apposite to render our opinion in order to lend a quietus to the doubts which appear t