Bail applications must typically be initiated at the trial court level, reinforcing the principle of exhausting all remedies before seeking relief from higher courts, except under exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction for bail - Petitioner sought to directly approach High Court for bail without exhausting remedy at trial court, citing long incarceration - High Court ruled maintainability concerns due to prior petitions being dismissed - Relegated petitioner to trial court for bail application, allowing subsequent approach to High Court if needed. (Paras 20-24)

(B) Bail Proceedings - Discretionary powers of courts and the principle of exhaustion of remedies - High Court emphasized necessity to approach trial court first, except in exceptional circumstances, which were not established in this case. (Paras 10-22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of multiple serious offenses, was previously denied bail at both trial court and High Court levels. The petitioner had been in custody for over 13 months and failed to provide exceptional reasons for bypassing the trial court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court directed that the trial court's decision should be sought first, allowing for the option to re-approach the High Court subsequently.

Issues: Maintainability of the bail petition in High Court given earlier denials by trial court and concurrent jurisdiction principle.

Ratio Decidendi: High Court emphasized that direct access to the High Court is generally disallowed unless exceptional circumstances are proven, which were absent here.

Result: Petition dismissed; petitioner to file for bail at trial court.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.29064/2024 arising out of Crime No.107/2024 registered by the respondent - police for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 376(2)(K), 354, 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 506, 509, 201 of IPC r/w Section 66E of I.T.Act, 200o, has preferred the present petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C . seeking his release on bail and for other reliefs.

2. Heard Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadagi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability / entertainability of the present petition by contending that the same was not maintainable / entertainable by this Court, since the earlier bail petition in Crl.Misc.5509/2024 was filed by the very same petitioner before the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2024, subsequent to which, the bail petition in Crl.P.No.6401/2024 was also dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 21.10.2024 and confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.)No.15292/2024 dated 11.11.2024.

3.1 It is therefore submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent that since the petitioner had earlier approached the trial court, this Court and Apex Court as stated supra, the present petition was not maintainable / entertainable at the instance of the petitioner, who is to be relegated to expedite his remedy before the trial court before approaching this Court by filing the present petition. In support of his contentions, learned Spl.P.P. placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550 ;

(ii) Mr. Dinesh Gowda and Another v. The State through Whitefield Police Station, Bangalore – ILR 2016 KAR 3965;

(iii) Smt.Savitri Samson vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2001 KAR 4080;

(iv) KWMTA GWRA BRAHMA vs. State of Assam – 2015 SCC OnLine Gau 170 ;

(v) Phulami Tamang vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – 2025 SCC OnLine Del 400;

(vi) Mohalal v. State of Maharashtra – 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 421;

(vii) Sri.Imran H vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.362/2025 Dated 31.01.2025;

(viii) Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court & Anr. – Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 55/2025 dated 07.02.2025 (SC);

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was undisputedly arrested as long back as on 31.05.2024 and has been in judicial custody for more than 13 months as on today and as such, in view of the long incarceration of the petitioner for more than 13 months, there was no bar / prohibition for the petitioner to maintain the present petition which is entertainable by this Court without relegating the petitioner to approach the trial court and as such, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent may be rejected and the matter be disposed of on merits. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others – (2021) 13 SCC 822;

(ii) Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.

(iii) Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550 ;

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. Initially, the question / issue as to whether the present petition could be taken up by this Bench is came up for consideration, since earlier bail petition in Crl.P.No.6401/2024 was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 21.10.2024. In this context, it is relevant to state that the petitioner has filed a Memo dated 09.07.2024, which reads as under:-

MEMO

“The undersigned Counsel for the Petitioner most respectfully submits that, in view of the clarification Order dated: 07.02.2025 by the Hon’ble Suprem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19535

Bail applications must typically be initiated at the trial court level, reinforcing the principle of exhausting all remedies before seeking relief from higher courts, except under exceptional circumstances.

Cases Referred (2)