Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Singh
B.K. Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Conflict of opinion expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court regarding maintainability of bail application before the High Court under Section 389 (2) Cr.P.C., in a criminal appeal pending before the court subordinate to it, has led to this matter being placed before us pursuant to the orders passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
2. We have heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim and Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.
3. Facts giving rise to the present proceedings lie in a narrow compass. Criminal proceedings came to be initiated against the present applicant under Section 409 IPC pursuant to FIR lodged in Case Crime No.519 of 2005, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar on 3.8.2005. On conclusion of investigation in this case the prosecution submitted charge-sheet whereafter trial commenced against the applicant in Case No.10596 of 2009. The proceedings culminated in conviction of applicant vide judgment dated 23.1.2016. On 27.1.2016 the applicant was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and the default sentence was of simp
The High Court has the authority to grant bail under Section 389(2) despite prior denials by subordinate courts, maintaining concurrent jurisdiction to enhance access to justice.
High Court can entertain bail applications based on new evidence collected during trial, despite prior rejections by the Sessions Court.
The court emphasized the constitutional right to timely bail hearings, mandating that bail applications be resolved within two weeks, aligning with the principles of justice and the presumption of in....
A direct application for bail to the High Court is permissible in exceptional circumstances, although the Sessions Court is the preferred forum for such applications.
Anticipatory bail applications under S.438 must typically be filed in the Sessions Court first, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Delay in trial cannot be used as a ground for bail.
A second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable even if new circumstances develop after rejection or disposal of an earlier application.
A second criminal appeal against the same order rejecting bail is not maintainable after an initial dismissal under Section 14(A) of the Special Act.
The High Court acts as an appellate court under the Special Act, and a second appeal against the original bail order is not maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
