Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.

- 14534 of 2021

Applicant :- Hari Mohan Niranjan

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

On 1.10.2021, this Court passed the following order:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the

record.

2. The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the

powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he

may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable

offence in connection with Case Crime No.845 of 2020, under Sections

420, 406 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jalaun.

3. From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this

Court straightaway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the

court of sessions.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to

Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (UP Act No.4 of 2019), which reads thus:

"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to

the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by

the Court of Session."

5. After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in

its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that

if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he

would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of

Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed

reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit

Bharti and others vs. State of UP and another [2020 (3) ADJ 575], in

which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special

reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those

pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons

mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present

anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.

6. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of

Government Advocate and as per Chapter-XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad

High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in

Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of

2020 (Govind Mishra @ Chhotu vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory

bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA

as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.

7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any

imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any

cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by

learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would

render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and

with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach

to its logical conclusion and shall not flee from the course of justice.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the

applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle

him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were

advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity

of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgments in

the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 8 SCC

273]; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP & others [(1994) 4 SCC 260] and

Sanaul Haque vs. State of UP & another [2008 CrLJ 1998], to buttress his

contentions.

9. In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel

for the applicant has submitted that Mohan Singh ha