Allahabad High Court
Indra Singh @ Indar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30922 of 2019
Applicant :- Indra Singh @ Indar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Lal Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Madan Lal Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of present 438 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant prayed for anticipatory bail in case crime No.962 of 2015, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Anti Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri, District Meerut.
It appears from the record that the applicant has directly approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail without approaching the Court of Sessions and on a query made from learned counsel for the applicant he admitted the said fact and submitted that under section 438 Cr.P.C., this Court as well as Court of Sessions has concurrent jurisdiction, hence the applicant has directly approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and further tried to justify the filing of the present anticipatory bail application directly before this Court.
After having examined the submission of learned counsel for the parties on the said point, this Court is of the view that though it is true that this Court as well as Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction for entertaining an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. but if the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected by this Court then the right of the applicant for moving the Court of Sessions would be declined for all time to come and he may loose one opportunity of seeking appropriate remedy from Court of Sessions provided under the law, therefore, it is desirable that the applicant first approach the Court of Sessions and if he is aggrieved by the order of the Court of Sessions, then he is at liberty to approach this Court challenging the order of the Court of Sessions. Moreover, if the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected by the Court of Sessions then too there is no apprehension of applicant being taken into custody and sent to jail unlike as provided under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the present anticipatory bail application may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to first avail the appropriate remedy before the Court of Sessions, to which learned A.G.A. states that he has no objection.
In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to first approach the Court of Sessions concerned for seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case of the applicant on merits.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
NS
