( 1 ) THIS is an application made by the applicant for grant of bail in anticipation of her being arrested under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No. 158/03 for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, directly without approaching the Court of Sessions at the first instance.

( 2 ) AT the outset, this Court had asked the learned counsel for the applicant as to why the applicant has not approached at the first instance before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction over the matter.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Section 438 of the Cr. P. C. provides concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, it is the choice of the applicant to approach either of the Courts. In the application, the applicant has not mentioned the facts of the case as to how and on what basis, she has an apprehension for her arrest which may facilitate this Court to apply its mind effectively while using power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the application, no reasons have been assigned as to why she has not approached and what are the special circumstances under which, the applicant filed this application directly before this Court though she is not a permanent resident of Indore. She is resident of Subhash Chowk, Sanawad (District Khargone, M. P. ). The applicant has even not mentioned that as to how she is connected with the firm and whether it is a partnership firm, or proprietory firm. If it is a partnership firm, then, whether she is a working partner or sleeping partner, has also not been mentioned.

( 4 ) THE nature of offence appears to be a serious one. Since she has not approached the Court of Sessions, therefore, this Court is also not having benefit of getting assistance from the order passed by the said Court.

( 5 ) LONG back, this Court, in the case of Dainy alias Raju v. State of MP1. Hon. Justice R. C. Lahoti (now Judge of the Supreme Court) has held that though under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr. P. C. there is concurrent jurisdiction, but the application should be filed first before the Court of Sessions and on failure before that Court, the application should be filed before the High Court accompanied with the first order of Sessions Court and also mentioning all the relevant facts. His Lordship, in paras 19, 20 and 21 has given detailed reasons for holding so. For convenience, the same are reproduced below19. The jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Session under Section 439, Cr. P. C. being concurrent, as a matter of practice, the bail applicants are required ordinarily to approach the Court of Sessions in the first instance and if relief is denied they approach the High Court u/s 439, Cr. P. C. itself, not as a superior Court sitting in appellate or revisional jurisdiction over the order of the Court of Sessions, but because the superior Court can still exercise its own jurisdiction independently, unaffected by the result of exercise by the Court of Session because the latter is an inferior Court though vested with concurrent jurisdiction. The application seeking bail before the High Court is accompanied by an order of the Court of Session rejecting a similar prayer. The idea is to provide the superior Court with an advantage of apprising itself with the grounds as considerations which prevailed with the Court of Session in taking the view which it did. It has come to my notice in several cases that the first order of the Court of Session rejecting a prayer for bail is a detailed order and when another application is repeated before the same Court, the subsequent order rejects the application simply by stating that earlier application having been rejected on merits, the Court did not see any reason to take a different view of the matter. The latter order is not a detailed one. This subsequent order is filed before the High Court to fulfil the formality but the ine