1. For granting anticipatory bail under Section 497-A Cr. P. C. concurrent jurisdiction has been vested in the High Court and the Court of Session. Whether an applicant, whose application for such bail has been rejected by a Session Court, can legally maintain another application before the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail or for that matter, remedy of revision under Section 439 Cr. P. C. before the High Court alone is available? And whether a Special Judge, Anti- Corruption possesses any jurisdiction and power under Section 497-A Cr. P. C. for granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of an offence of Corruption under the provisions of RPC or prevention of Corruption Act 2006? And if yes whether such power is exclusive or can also be exercised by a Session Court? These are important questions of law, which have arisen for determination in Bail application No. 62/2003.

2. As Bail Application No. 58/2003, also relates to the same FIR in which Bail Application No. 62/2003 has been filed, therefore, both these applications are being taken together for disposal and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Before answering the questions of law formulated as above, it would be appropriate to take notice of the necessary facts.

4. The Vigilance Organization, Jammu has registered FIR No. 21 of 2003 for commission of offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 and Sections 161,120-B RPC. From the recitals of FIR, the allegations are that (1) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Tehsildar Territorial Kathua (Petitioner in Bail Application No. 62/ 2003) (2) Shiv Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar Agrarian Reforms, Kathua (3) Dewan Singh, Naib Tehsildar Kathua (4) Des Raj, Gird war Circle No.4 Kathua and (5) Raghuwinder Singh, Patwari Halqa Janglote Kathua has hatched a Criminal conspiracy with one Kashmiri Lal Bali with a view to make fraudulent allotment of 48 kanals of land falling under Khasra No. 803/1 min, situated at village Janglote Tehsil Kathua. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the officers of the Revenue Department mentioned above on the basis of fabricated record allotted the said land to above said Kashmir Lal Bali on 23rd January 2003, showing him a occupant of the said land from 1971 onwards; despite the fact that said Kashmiri Lal migrated from Chhamb during Indo-POK War of 1971 and settled at Manwal camp up to 1978, where after he came to village Chalk Luddan, Tehsil Kathua. Infact, the land under dispute was a State land, which was under illegal occupation of Shri Parveen Kumar, Lokesh Kumar, Tilak Raj. Rajesh Kumar and Nek Mohd. and entries to this effect stood recorded in the Revenue record. With a view to achieve the object of conspiracy, false affidavits from the above said persons were obtained to the effect that land in dispute was under the occupation of the above said Kashmiri Lal which is not a fact. Under Section 133(C) of Land Revenue Act, the Revenue Officer were duty bound to evict the occupants from the said land but instead of doing so, they allotted the land to said Kashmiri Lal with a view to confer undue pecuniary advantage to him, who in turn, executed a power of attorney in favour of one Uttam Chand, who sold 16 kannals of land out of this land to one Raj Daluja, who is constructing a School building thereon. On the above said allegations, FIR was registered as aforesaid against the accused and investigation started.

5. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta, in Bail Application No. 62/2003, filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Jammu, who by his order dated 1Oth July 2003, rejected the same. After the rejection of the application for bail of the petitioner - Ashok Kumar, has filed an application No. 62/2003 for grant of anticipatory bail. The accused Dewan Singh, however, directly has filed the bail application No.5 8/2003, in which a notice was issued and interim direction was issued to the respondents vide this Court orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document