Sachin Badhera And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2019 Latest Caselaw 5733 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26913 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Sachin Badhera And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit,Premshankar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Sri Adil Khan, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opp. party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Amit and Sri P.S.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Adil Khan, learned counsel for opp. party no.2, Sri G.P.Singh, earned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

By means of present 438 Cr.P.C. application, the applicants have prayed that they may be granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.199 of 2019, under Sections 376, 377 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha.

It appears from the record that the applicants had directly approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail without approaching the Court of Sessions and on a query made from learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants have ha 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 applicants is rejected by this Court then the right of the applicants 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 applicants first approach the Court of Sessions and if they are aggrieved by the order of the Court of Sessions then they are at liberty to approach this Court challenging the order of the Court of Sessions. Moreover, if the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is rejected by the Court of Sessions then too there is no apprehension of applicants being taken into custody and sent to jail unlike as provided under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Thus, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the present anticipatory bail application may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants to first avail the appropriate remedy before the Court of Sessions to which learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opp.party no.2 state that they have no objection.

In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants 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 applicants on merits.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019/NS