Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. PHAUJDAR, S. RAFAT ALAM
BALRAM DUTT SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. M. F. B. A. 14207 Of 1997
Decided On : 04/09/1999
JURISDICTION - BAIL APPLICATIONS - U. P. HIGH COURT (AMALGAMATION) ORDER, 1948 - S. 14(1) PROVISO - CAUSE OF ACTION - MEANING - BAIL APPLICATIONS IN AYURVEDIC SCAM - WHETHER ENTERTAINABLE AT ALLAHABAD OR LUCKNOW BENCH - HELD, ONLY LUCKNOW BENCH HAS JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous bail applications were filed in the Allahabad High Court by individuals accused of involvement in the Ayurvedic scam, which was being investigated by the CBI. The applicants argued that the bail applications should be heard at Allahabad, as the alleged misappropriation, cheating, and forgery occurred in various districts outside the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. The CBI, however, contended that the initial FIR was lodged in Lucknow and that the Lucknow Bench had jurisdiction since the forged allotment orders were issued there.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cause of action for the bail applications arose when the applicants were detained in connection with the investigation/charge-sheet in the CBI FIR that was lodged at Lucknow. Therefore, the cause of action was only within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the bail applications could be entertained at the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court or only at the Lucknow Bench. 2. What is the meaning of "cause of action" in the context of bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin's case, which held that if the cause of action for a writ petition arose within the Oudh jurisdiction or even partly within it, the Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction over the matter. 2. The court held that the cause of action for a bail application arises when the applicant is detained in connection with the investigation/charge-sheet in the FIR that was lodged at Lucknow.
Final Decision: The court held that the bail applications could only be entertained at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and directed that the matters be laid before the appropriate Bench at Lucknow for consideration of the bail applications on merit.
( 2 ) IN the case of Balram Datt Sharma the averments in the bail application indicate that it related to Case No. RC 32 (A)/96 CBI/spe/lko under Ss. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC read with Ss. 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, relating to police station Kotwali, Lucknow. The applicant was arrested by the CBI on 29-8-1997 at Lucknow in connection with the Ayurvedic scam after he was called for an interrogation and had come from his village Jagjeetpur, District Haridwar. An FIR in case Crime No. 373 of 1995 lodged at police station Civil Lines in the district of Meerut was annexed to this application to show that the place of occurrence of the alleged misappropriation, cheating and forgery was within the district of Meerut as per report by Dr. Shiv Raj Singh, Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U. P. The CBI FIR was also annexed to this bail application further to say that this was lodged only in the year 1996, i. e. after the earlier mentioned FIR.
( 3 ) IN the bail application for Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma also the concerned CBI FIR was referred in which the prayer for bail was made.
( 4 ) IN the case of Satya Pal Sharma again we find the same case referred in which the prayer for bail was made.
( 5 ) IN the case of Sri Raj Narain Singh, again similar averments have been made in the bail application, as also in the cases of Ram Prakash Misra, Shiv Prakash Srivastava, Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Padam Datt Daundiyal.
( 6 ) IT appears that all these bail applications were placed before some or other single Bench and there had been an order on the applications of Padam Datta Daundiyal, Shiv Prakash Srivastava, Dr. Balram Datt Sharma, Dr. Ram Prakash Misra and Sri Raj Narain Singh that the matter should be placed before the Honble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench on the question whether these applications were entertainable at the principal seat at Allahabad or only at Lucknow Bench. Similar orders were made in the other applications also. As such, the present Division Bench is concerned only on the question of jurisdiction of the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court vis-a-vis the Lucknow Bench in connection with exercising jurisdiction to entertain the prayers for bail. It was contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicants that the causes of action in these cases arose at different districts beyond the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench and, as such, the Judges at the principal seat of Allahabad High Court would have jurisdiction in these matters to entertain the bail applications. The learned counsel for the CBI, however, argued that the initial FIR was lodged at Lucknow and the allegations indicated that the forgery in issuing allotment orders for withdrawal of different sums was made at Lucknow and only on the basis of such forged allotment order, consequential withdrawals were made in different districts and, as such, the Lucknow Bench alone would have the jurisdiction. It was further contended that the accused persons are being prosecuted on the basis of the FIR drawn up by the CBI and reports are being made to the CBI Court at Lucknow and on that score as well only the Lucknow Bench would have the jurisdiction in the matters. On behalf of the applicants, it was argued that in a number of similar cases bail applications were entertained at Allahabad and were disposed of and, as such, by precedent this, Court could exercise
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
