JUDGMENT :

S. Hukato Swu, J.

1. These are four bail applications filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.PC praying for granting of bail. The accused namely, Zheshito Swu, son of late Yelhozhe, Kiyevi village aged about 65 years (ii) Vikaho Kappo, son of Khutokho, Kiyevi village aged about 53 years, (iii) Ghosheto Swu, son of late Yelhozhe, Kiyevi village aged about 55 years and (iv) accused Lovito Sumi, son of Hokiqhe, Diphupar F-Khel, aged about 32 years were all arrested by the State Crime Branch from two different locations at 4th Mile Diphupar Dimapur on 30-03-2021 at around 5:00 A.M. The accused/petitioners were arrested in connection with 22-03-2021 incident where some unknown miscreants killed three persons at Lamhainamdi village. Case was registered at Kohima State Crime Branch as case No. 2/21 under Section 302/120B/188/34 IPC read with 251A/27(3) Arms Act and a correspondent case before the Kohima Magistrate's Court was registered as G.R. No. 26/2021. A bail application was filed before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima on 05-04-2021. During the hearing of bail application the issue of jurisdiction was raised and the learned PD&SJ on examination of the issue came to the conclusion that the PD&SJ Kohima had no jurisdiction to try the matter which is reproduced herein below:-

"ORDER

05-04-2021

Present Shri Kathu, learned P.P. for the State and Mr. Joshua, the learned counsel. The I/O of the case, namely, UBI K. Chopathung Ngullie is also present.

I have heard the parties and perused the records.

2. Accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi are produced on expiry of the period of police custody with a prayer by the I/O to remand them to 14 days judicial custody. It may be noted that two other accused, namely, Zheshito Swu and Vikhaho Kappo have already been remanded to judicial custody.

3. At the very outset, during the course of proceeding, the question of jurisdiction cropped up and as such, this issue will be dealt with.

The investigation into the instant case was set into motion by lodging of a suo motu FIR at the State Crime Police Station. There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the State Crime PS extends to the whole of the State of Nagaland. There is also no dispute that the lone PS of the State Crime Branch is at Kohima. However, there is no designated Court to deal with the matters of State Crime PS. Neither is there any notification by the State Government designating the Court at Kohima to deal with the instant case. As such, in the absence of designated court or notification to deal with the instant case, the registration of the instant case at Kohima is contrary to law.

4. As per the provision of Section 177 CrPC, every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Thus, even though the jurisdiction of the State Crime PS extends to the whole of Nagaland, the District Courts within whose jurisdiction the crime was committed will have jurisdiction over the matter.

It is submitted by the I/O that the place of occurrence in the instant case is a disputed area and yet to be demarcated and it is not certain whether it will fall under Dimapur or Peren District. In such cases, the provision of Section 178(a) CrPC comes into aid which states that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Thus, the Court of Dimapur and/or Peren will have jurisdiction over the instant case.

As such, in view of the aforesaid, the courts at Kohima have no jurisdiction over the instant case. The SIT and/or the I/O of the case is to intimate the court of the undersigned to which of the district court the instant case should be inquired into and tried so as to transmit the case records.

5. Meanwhile, in the interest of justice, the a