Sameer Kamyab vs State Of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 609

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
Sameer Kamyab – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA.

JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)

Applicant Sameer Kamyab is seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0453 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 506 IPC, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that applicant has an equally efficacious remedy available to file the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court but instead of approaching the Sessions Court, the applicant/accused has directly come before this High Court without exhausting equally efficacious remedy available before Sessions Court.

4. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that the issue regarding entertainability of anticipatory bail application before the High Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1562/2017 “Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. The State of Assam & Ors.” wherein the issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that “Whether the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has discretion not to entertain such an application