IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
Usan and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 969 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 324(2), 333, 351(3) - Anticipatory bail - Applicants sought anticipatory bail directly from High Court without exhausting remedy before Sessions Court - High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. but discretion to entertain applications directly is limited to special circumstances - Applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting direct approach to High Court. (Paras 6, 8, 13, 19)
Facts of the case:
Applicants sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0555/2024 under various sections of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar, without first applying to the Sessions Court.
Findings of Court:
High Court acknowledged concurrent jurisdiction with Sessions Court but emphasized the necessity of exhausting remedies before the lower court unless exceptional circumstances are established.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court should entertain anticipatory bail applications directly without prior application to the Sessions Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, it should not entertain applications directly unless special circumstances are established, to prevent flooding the High Court with cases that could be resolved at the Sessions Court level.
Result: Anticipatory bail application dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file before the Sessions Court.
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
1. By way of present application, the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0555/2024 under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 324(2), 333, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned State Counsel would submit that applicants/accused have an equally efficacious remedy available to file the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court but instead of approaching the Sessions Court, the applicants/accused have directly come before this High Court without exhausting equally efficacious remedy available before Sessions Court.
4. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that the issue regarding entertainability of anticipatory bail application before the High Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1562/2017 Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam & Ors. wherein the issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that “Whether the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has discretion not to entertain such an application on the ground that the applicant must first apply to the Court of Sessions.”
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants/accused would submit that the High Court and the Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the applicants/accused cannot be compelled to apply for anticipatory bail before the court of Sessions before approaching this High Court.
6. No doubt the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction u/s 438 Cr.P.C. This is also abundantly clear from the language of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which says that any person who has reasons to believe that, he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to High Court or the Court of Sessions for a direction under this Section, that in event of arrest he shall be released on bail. This means that High Court and Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for an offence. Hence, an application for grant of anticipatory bail directly in the High Court without first approaching Sessions Court is certainly maintainable. However, in considered view of this Court, the High Court hearing the application for anticipatory bail directly filed before it, always has discretion to entertain it or not or to direct the applicant to first move the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail.
7. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is equally efficacious remedy available with the applicants/accused to file application seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court at the first instance. If the anticipatory bail applications are entertained in each and every case in the High Court, without exhausting the remedy before the court of Sessions, it would result into flooding the High Court with cases for the relief which could have been granted by the Sessions Court and this Court will not be benefited by the observations made by the Sessions Judge in the orders of rejections of the anticipatory bail application.
8. In view of the above, accused can certainly make an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Session but it is always open to the High Court, in such cases, either to exercise its discretion not to entertain such application for grant of anticipatory bail as equally efficacious remedy is available to the accused for anticipatory bail before the Court of Session or to entertain it considering the special facts and circumstances of that case.
9. In similar nature of case in Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matters Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1094 of 2020, Five Judges Full Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High court has pondered upon this
The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail, but should only entertain direct applications in exceptional circumstances.
The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail but should generally require applicants to first seek relief from the Sessions Court unless exceptional c....
The High Court retains discretion to entertain anticipatory bail applications directly, but encourages applicants to first approach the Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Application for grant of anticipatory bail directly in High Court without first approaching Sessions Court is certainly maintainable – However, if anticipatory bail applications are entertained in ea....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction for entertaining prayer for anticipatory bail is concurrent in nature between the High Court and the Court of Sessions. Addit....
Anticipatory bail applications under S.438 must typically be filed in the Sessions Court first, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Anticipatory bail – High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction along with Sessions Court insofar as grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is con....
An accused can approach the High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances, especially if the Sessions Judge has ordered the forfeiture of bail and sur....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.