Ashutosh Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2024:AHC:167916
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Transit anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are exercised only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a person appears to have been falsely implicated; an applicant who has already agitated anticipatory bail before a court and withdrawn that application, and who has criminal antecedents, does not present such exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of this discretion. An applicant who files successive anticipatory bail applications in different forums in respect of related offences, after having already withdrawn an earlier application before one forum and failed to surrender as directed, engages in forum shopping which constitutes a misuse of the court's process and renders the subsequent application liable to rejection.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9981 of 2024
Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Yadav,Devbratt Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present transit anticipatory bail application has been filed for anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.6256 of 2022, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Court No.15, Chandigarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. Two first anticipatory bail application were filed by the applicant and were decided same day regarding the offences committed at Kashipur, District Uddham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand and another at Chandigarh.
5. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant was withdrawn by him and it was prayed by the counsel that an order may be passed in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. The following order was passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1146 of 2024 on 8.2.2024:
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Complaint Case No.390 of 2019, Computer Case No.UKUS060008252019, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge II- 7, Kashipur, District Uddham Singh Nagar, U.K.
4. After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
5. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for interference U/s 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within one month from today and in case a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
7. For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case."
6. The applicant has not surrendered in light of the said order of this Court dated 8.2.2024 rather has filed another second anticipatory bail application in the guise of a transit anticipatory bail application.
7. The provision of transit anticipatory bail application is exercised under exceptional circumstances that too a person who seems to have been falsely implicated in a case, but herein the case of the applicant is at a different footing as he has criminal antecedents coupled with the fact that the applicant had already agitated the provisions of anticipatory bail before this Court, although the said application was also placed wrongly.
8. The said Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1146 of 2024 was not maintainable before this Court, but the applicant has concealed the said fact that the FIR was within the jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand and beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
9. This is another attempt by the applicant to take an order from this Court, which tantamounts to forum shopping and is misuse of process of Court.
10. Learned A.G.A. has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Union of India vs. Cipla Limited and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 262, whereby forum shopping has been termed as a disreputable practice.
11. This Act of the applicant needs to be dealt with severely, but this Court is exercising restraint and not imposing any cost on the applicant.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The present transit anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 22.10.2024
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free