An applicant can approach the High Court directly for anticipatory bail if exceptional circumstances justify bypassing the Sessions Court, with the necessity of establishing compelling reasons.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravi Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for the informant, who has filed his Vakalatanam, which is taken on record, and perused the records.

2. Learned counsel for the informant has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has approached this Court directly without filing application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and, therefore, the instant application should not be entertained. It has been submitted that anticipatory bail applications filed by the three co- accused persons are pending before the Sessions Court and their prayer for grant of interim protection has been rejected by the Sessions Court.

3. Replying to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a young person aged 21 years and is pursuing B.Tech. Course. His examinations are schedule to commence shortly and as the Sessions Court has already rejected the prayer for grant of interim protection to the three co-accused persons, the applicant has approached this Court directly in view of the aforesaid exceptional circumstances.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the informant have placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Bench consisting of five Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and Another: 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949, wherein the following questions were referred to the larger Bench: -

“(i) Whether the Court would have no jurisdiction to reject the anticipatory bail after considering the grounds of compelling reasons mentioned in the affidavit being found not appealing, which would amount nothing but to approach this Court directly;

(ii) Whether amongst the grounds which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (A) requires any reconsideration so as to preclude the co-accused approaching this Court directly in case the other co- accused's regular bail/anticipatory bail is rejected by the Court of Sessions and whether he be also subjected to filing such an affidavit, showing therein the circumstances in which he had to feel compelled to approach this Court directly;

(iii) Whether amongst the grounds which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (B) requires any reconsideration as to whether an accused, who is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court concerned, faces a threat of arrest, should be allowed to approach the High Court directly, to move an anticipatory bail application by the logic given above in Para 6 of this judgment; and

(iv) Whether such anticipatory bail applications which do not contain any compelling reason to approach this Court directly, should be entertained.”

5. The five Judge Bench referred to the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.: 2019 SCC OnLine All 4821, wherein it has been held that: -

“A. Section 438 Cr.P.C. on its plain terms does not mandate or require a party to first approach the Sessions Court before applying to the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The provision as it stands does not require an individual first being relegated to the Court of Sessions before being granted the right of audience before this Court

B. Notwithstanding 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 and special circumstances must necessarily be found to exist in justification of the High Court being approached first 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 individual matter

C. The words “exceptio