Ankit Jain vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the applicant had not mentioned any compelling or special circumstances to justify approaching the High Court directly, without first exhausting the remedies available before the court of sessions. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, the Court found no compelling or special circumstances warranting the invocation of its jurisdiction directly. Consequently, the applicant's counsel sought to withdraw the application, which was not objected to by the State. The Court accordingly rejected the anticipatory bail application as withdrawn, granting the applicant liberty to approach the concerned court of Sessions.

Facts

The applicant, Ankit Jain, moved a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. directly before the High Court. The application sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 122 and 132 of the GST Act, at Police Station New Agra, District Agra, during the pendency of the investigation. The State of U.P. and another were the opposite parties. The applicant's counsel sought to withdraw the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case of compelling or special circumstances to directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail, bypassing the court of sessions, under Section 438 Cr.P.C.? The petitioner argued that the Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another (2020) mandates compelling or special circumstances for direct approach to the High Court. The petitioner's counsel ultimately submitted that the applicant did not wish to press the application and sought to withdraw it with liberty to approach the concerned court. The revenue (State) did not object to the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal.