Dismissal Of FIR Quashing Plea No Bar On Filing Anticipatory Bail
In
a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court allowed the Anticipatory Bail
Application pertaining to registered FIR under section 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and 3&4
Dowry Prohibition Act,1961, which was filed by the applicant after the dismissal
of petition for Quashing of the FIR. Dismissal Of FIR
Quashing Plea No Bar On Filing Anticipatory Bail.
 |
| Dismissal Of FIR Quashing Plea No Bar On Filing Anticipatory Bail |
The
Allahabad High Court held that the writ petition filed for quashing of FIR
and the application filed for anticipatory bail are completely different
remedies which are to be decided on different considerations and grounds. Dismissal
of the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR would not bar the
filing of the application for anticipatory bail and it has to be considered
on its merits.
The
Allahabad High Court ruled that the applicant can directly approach the High
Court for anticipatory bail where there are some special circumstances
justifying him not approaching the Session Court First.
Brief Facts
The
facts of the case is that the FIR was lodged against the applicant and
his family members under section 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and 3&4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleged
that all the accused persons used to
harass her for demanding dowry. The Applicant/accused filed an Application for Anticipatory bail under section 482 BNSS before this Hon’ble Court.
Contentions of the Informant
The
learned Counsel for the informant argued that the applicant has approached this
court directly without filing an application for anticipatory
bail before this Session Court and therefore the instant
application need not be considered. It is further submitted that the anticipatory
bail application filed by three co- accused persons are pending
before the Session Court and their prayer for grant of interim protection has
been rejected by the learned Session Court.
The
learned counsel for the informant further contented that the co- accused and
the applicant had filed an Criminal Misc Writ petition before the
Hon’ble High Court which have been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
23.04.2025.
Contentions of the Applicant
The
learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that the applicant is a young person
aged 21 year and is pursing B. Tech. Course. His examinations are going to
commence shortly and since the Session Court has already rejected the prayer
for grant of interim protection to the three co- accused, the
applicant has directly approach this Court in view of the above exceptional circumstances.
Issues
Whether
the accused can directly approach the High Court without filing an application
for anticipatory bail before the Session Court?
The
learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the informant
have placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a bench consisting of five
Hon’ble judges of this court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P SCC
 |
| applicant can directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail some special circumstances |
Observations of the Court
The
Hon’ble High Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the learned
counsel for the informant and held that the applicant can directly approach
the High Court for anticipatory bail where there
are some special circumstances justifying him not approaching the
Session Court First.
The
Hon’ble Court further observed that in the present case, the Session Court has
considered the anticipatory bail applications of three co- accused
but refused to grant them interim protection. Therefore, the apprehension of
arrest of those co- accused persons continues. There is a reasonable
apprehension that if the applicant approaches the Session Court will be
consistent in its approach and will not grant him even interim anticipatory
bail. These circumstances create an exceptional circumstance
justifying the applicant, who is a young man pursuing B. Tech. Course, to directly
approach this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Having
considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in
view that although the FIR alleges the applicant’s mother (co-accused)
strangulated the deceased with the help of other accused person and there no
specific allegation has been made out against the applicant. I am of the view
that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Conclusion
The
Allahabad High Court ruled that the writ petition filed for quashing of FIR
and the application filed for anticipatory bail are completely different
remedies which are to be decided on different considerations and grounds. Dismissal
of the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR would not bar
the filing of the application for anticipatory bail and also held that
the applicant can directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail
where there are some special circumstances justifying him not approaching the
Session Court First.
Accordingly,
Appeal allowed.
Case
Title: - Prashant Shukla v.State of U.P
Case
No.: - Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. - 398
of 2025
Read More:
Right to be heard before taking Cognizance u/s 223 BNSS
Power To Investigate Of Cognizable Offence Under BNSS
.png)
Post a Comment