B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the accused Mayur Bordoloi, praying for releasing him on bail. The accused has been arrested for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Dispur PS Case No. 1394 of 2013. Heard Smt. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. I have also perused the Case Diary.

2. Apparently, the case under Section 498-A IPC has been filed after 5 (five) years of the marriage and the accused is in custody since last 10 (ten) days. Besides this, there is no sufficient evidence of physical assault. Hence, I hold that further detention of the accused in the custody is not warranted.

3. Accordingly, the bail prayer is accepted. The learned CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati, is directed to release the aforesaid petitioner, on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to his satisfaction.

4. Before parting with the record, I would like to observe that it was a fit case where the accused could have renewed his bail prayer before the Judicial Magistrate or could have approached the learned Sessions Judge. However, since the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the accused has straightway filed the bail application before this Court. To prevent misuse of the concurrent powers of the High Court some remedial measures need to be taken by the High Court or by the Government.

5. In this case, the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2013 and the accused was arrested and produced before a Judicial Magistrate on 13.07.2013. It is not known as to when the bail application was filed by the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate and on what grounds the bail prayer was rejected since no copy of any order passed by the Judicial Magistrate has been annexed with the bail application. The High Court Registry also informed me that there is no notification mandating enclosing of orders passed by the Judicial Magistrates or Sessions Judges, rejecting bail prayers or even the arrest memo.

6. There is also no averment in the bail application that the accused had approached the concerned Sessions Judge for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before approaching the High Court. However, the learned counsel informed that no bail application was filed before the Sessions Court before approaching the High Court. In this way, the bail application for a petty offence under Section 498-A IPC was filed within 5 (five) days of the arrest.

7. It has been noticed that large number of bail applications involving minor offences, triable by Judicial Magistrates, are filed in the High Court bypassing the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Judges under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Same is the position for filing anticipatory bail applications.

8. In the case of Daini @ Raju Vs. State of M.P. the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that as a matter of practice and propriety a bail application under Section 439 should be filed in the Court of Sessions at the first instance and the view taken by the Sessions Judge helps the High Court in assessing the merit of the case. While holding so, the Hon'ble Judge also issued certain guidelines. Similarly, in the case of Rameshchandra Kashiram Vora Vs. State of Gujarat (1988) Cri.L.J. 210, it has been held that ordinarily Sessions Courts should be approached first for regular or anticipatory bail. This view has been taken relying upon various judgments from different High Courts. I am also of the view that sanctity of the hierarchy of different Courts should be followed as a matter of judicial discipline.

9. I am also of the view that if bail applications are filed in the Sessions Courts at the first instance the litigants may get relief expeditiously as the Case Diaries can be made available to the district courts immediately. On the other hand, filing of bail applica