The court ruled that special circumstances justified the petitioner directly approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail, yet denied the application due to the serious nature of charges and lack of cooperation in the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Case Crime No.0111 of 2025, under Sections 196 (1)(a), 196(1)(b), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 69 (a) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, Police StationHazratganj, District Lucknow.

2. Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application by stating that applicant has filed the present anticipatory bail application directly before the High Court without filing the same first before the Court of Sessions. He further submits that in view of Section 482 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant has to apply for anticipatory bail first before the Court of Session and thereafter she may approach the High Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. /b>., AIR OnLine 2020 ALL 694:(2020) 111 ALL Crl. C 134 (Paragraph-26). He has further submitted that case of theapplicant is not coming within the special circumstances, therefore, the applicant should be relegated to the Court of Session, where she may move an application for anticipatory bail.

3. Replying the aforesaid submissions, Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, leaned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivanshu Gowami, for the applicant has submitted that applicant is the resident of Jandaha, Mashraki, Kaimur (Bhabua), Jandaha, State of Bihar and the present FIR has been registered against her in District Lucknow. In support of his contention he has relied upon Paragraph-26-B of the Full Bench judgement rendered in the case of Ankit Bharti (supra) and has submitted that applicant is not residing in District Lucknow, therefore, the circumstances enunciated in the aforesaid case will be applicable in the present case and the applicant may maintain the present anticipatory bail application here before this Court and she should not be relegated to the Court of Session. Relevant portion of Paragraph-26 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:

“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 consti