[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Atul Juadi vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 27 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.3214 of 2026
Atul Juadi Petitioner(s)
....
Mr. Srikar Kumar Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No.
27.04.2026
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. The Petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with
Rampur P.S. Case No.44 of 2026, corresponding to Spl. G.R. Case
No.6 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Subarnapur for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 21(c) & 29 of theNarcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has filed this
petition under Section 482 of the BNSS for release on pre-arrest
bail.
4. Without going into the merits of the present petition filed by
the Petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section
438 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking direction for pre-arrest bail, this Court
is to observe first that whether the petition under Section 482 of
the BNSS is maintainable before this Court without exhausting
remedy under the said provision before the Court of Sessions
which has concurrent jurisdiction.
5. This Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the case of
Mitu Das and others v. State of Odisha1 observing that
ordinarily, in case of petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, the
remedy before the Court of Sessions ought to be exhausted
before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Ors.2 has categorically held as follows:
"6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our
sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court
has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent
jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for
entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this
Court has time and again observed that High Court
should always encourage exhausting an
alternative/concurrent remedy before directly
interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of
all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a
round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this
vide order dated 26.04.2021 passed in ABLAPL No.5283 of 2021
2020 SCC OnLine SC 2108
approach provides the High Court an opportunity to
assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions
Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of
independently applying its mind from the first go.
Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for
directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading
the appellant-complainant as a party.
7. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and
circumstances of the case, the serious nature of the
allegations against accused respondents and the gravity
of the offences alleged, we are of the view that the High
Court was not justified in passing the impugned order
granting anticipatory bail to the accused respondents."
7. In the case of Rameschandra Kashiram Vora & Ors. v.
State of Gujarat & Ors.3, wherein the High Court of
Gujarat held as follows:
"9.......I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of
these two cases. I am of the opinion that it would be a
sound exercise of judicial discretion not to entertain
each and every application for anticipatory bail directly
bypassing the Court of Session. Ordinarily, the Sessions
Court is nearer to the accused and easily accessible and
remedy of anticipatory bail is same and under same
section and there is no reason to believe that Sessions
Court will not act according to law and pass appropriate
orders. In a given case, if any accused is grieved, his
further remedy to approach the High Court is not barred
and he may prefer a substantive application for
1986 SCC OnLine Guj 56
anticipatory bail under Section 438 or revision
application under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. to the
High Court and the High Court would have the benefit
of the reasons given by the Sessions Court. It would be
only in exceptional cases or special circumstances that
the High Court may entertain such an application
directly and these exceptional and" special
circumstances must really be exceptional and should
have valid and cogent reasons for by passing the
Sessions Court and approaching the High Court......."
8. In view of the above discussion, the applicant should
approach the Sessions Court first then to the High Court like
that is adopted in Section 483 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 439
of the Cr.P.C.) The reasons for approaching the Court of
Sessions first may be due to the following:
i) Whenever concurrent jurisdiction is provided under
the statute simultaneously in two courts of which one is
superior to the other, then it is appropriate that the party
should apply to the subordinate Court first, then he/she
may seek his/her remedy in the High Court;
ii) The Sessions Court will always be nearer and
accessible court to the parties. Moreover, considering the
work load of the High Courts in the country and the
cases of this nature are nothing but contributing to
heavy pendency of cases. The applications under Section
483 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.)
often fail to get the required attention because of the
docket arising out of such applications filed under
Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.)
directly in the High Court by passing the Courts of
Sessions;
iii) The grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail requires
appreciation, scrutiny of facts and perusal of the entire
materials on record. In this context, if the Sessions Court
has already applied its mind and passed the appropriate
order, it would be easy for the High Court to look into
or have a cursory glance of the observation made by the
Sessions Court and dispose of the case with expedition.
9. In view of the above, the Petitioner is granted interim
protection for a period of three weeks to approach the Court of
Sessions for seeking similar relief and the Court of Sessions shall
list this matter as early as possible before the expiry of three
weeks of protection granted to the Petitioner.
10. In view of the above observation and direction, the ABLAPL
is disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Suchitra
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
