Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1303 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of anticipatory bail - Maintainability of application before High Court - Whether it is essential that a person/accused before approaching the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the CrPC and grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC should exhaust his remedies before the Sessions Court and then file application before the High Court? HELD THAT:- There is great deal of increase in the number of filing of bail application directly before this Court and it is consuming a large chunk of the judicial time for disposal of bail applications. Almost 2-3 benches are regularly constituted to deal with the bail applications. There is huge pendency of criminal appeal before the Division Bench, and criminal appeal, criminal revision and criminal petition(482 of the CrPC) before the Single Judge, besides there is huge pendency of civil appeals. Not usually this High Court has always functioned with full sanctioned strength. There are currently three outlying benches where Judges have to be deputed to deal with the work at the outlying benches - It is therefore necessary that normally a person/accused should file an anticipatory bail application u/s 438 of the CrPC or a bail application u/s 439 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court and thereafter he can approach the High Court. However, this is not an inviolable rule. In exceptional circumstances a person/accused can directly approach the High Court. The following are the circumstances under which a person/accused can directly approach the High Court. However, circumstances are illustrative and not exhaustive. There could be other exceptional circumstances which would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case: (i) When a person/accused from other State has to move an application for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the CrPC, if it is convenient for him to move such application before the High Court directly, which is nearer from the point of distance, in such a case the application filed before the High Court need not be rejected on the ground that he can approach the Sessions Court unless the Sessions Court is also located in the same place. (ii) Whenever in a Sessions' jurisdiction a particular incident or crime has attracted a lot of public and media attention with an adverse public opinion having been built up against the person/accused, in such cases the 438-CrPC-applications and 439-CrPC-applications can be filed directly before the High Court. (iii) When the Sessions Court has already rejected an application for grant of bail u/s 438/439 of the CrPC where one of the persons/accused is similarly placed it is not necessary that the similarly- placed person/accused should approach the Sessions Court for grant of bail, he can file an application before the High Court u/s 438/439 of the CrPC. Thus in brief, normally a person/accused should exhaust his remedy u/s 438 or 439 of the CrPC before the Sessions Judge before making an application before the High Court u/s 438 or 439 of the CrPC. However in exceptional illustrated circumstances a person/ accused can approach the High Court without exhausting his remedy before the Sessions Judge. Grant of Bail - offence u/s 387, 507, read with section 34 of the IPC - HELD THAT:- It appears that grave allegations are made in the complaint. The petitioner has filed an application without exhausting his remedy of filing an application before the Sessions Court. For the reasons stated above it is just and necessary that the petitioner should exhaust his remedy before the Sessions Judge and thereafter approach the High Court. Accordingly the petition is disposed of - The fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at ₹ 7000/- each, which will be paid to them by the State. Petition disposed off.
|