Right to Choose High Court or Court of Sessions for Bail Applications Upheld

The court held that an applicant seeking bail has the right to choose between approaching the High Court or the Court of Sessions under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The imposed restrictions on filing bail applications directly in the High Court were deemed unnecessary and against statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of protecting personal liberty and ensuring access to justice without undue constraints. The matter was referred back to the Single Judge for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an applicant seeking bail must first approach the Court of Sessions before moving the High Court.
2. The necessity and legality of imposing restrictions on filing bail applications directly in the High Court.
3. The interpretation and application of Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning anticipatory and regular bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Approaching the Court of Sessions Before the High Court:
The core issue in this case is whether an applicant seeking bail is bound to approach the Court of Sessions before moving the High Court. The judgment examines the statutory provisions under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allow an individual apprehending arrest or already arrested to apply for bail either to the High Court or the Court of Sessions. The statute confers a right to choose the forum without imposing any restrictions. The court acknowledges that while institutional hierarchy and respect for the lower courts are important, the right to personal liberty must be liberally construed. Therefore, the applicant's right to choose the forum should be respected, and no mandatory requirement to approach the Sessions Court first is warranted by the statute.

2. Imposing Restrictions on Filing Bail Applications Directly in the High Court:
The judgment addresses the directions given by a learned Single Judge, which imposed procedural restrictions on filing bail applications directly in the High Court. These directions included requiring a copy of the Sessions Court order or a petition explaining why the Sessions Court was not approached first. The Division Bench found these restrictions unnecessary and contrary to the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that such self-imposed restraints could defeat the objective of protecting personal liberty and ensuring access to justice. The judgment highlights that the statute does not place any restrictions on the applicant's right to choose the forum, and imposing such restrictions is unwarranted.

3. Interpretation and Application of Sections 438 and 439:
The judgment provides an in-depth analysis of Sections 438 and 439, which confer concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant bail. The court notes that the provisions do not suggest that an application must be filed in the Sessions Court first. The right to apply for bail is given equally to both courts, allowing the applicant to choose the forum. The court further observes that the legislative intent behind these provisions was to provide a safeguard against false accusations and to protect personal liberty. The judgment also references various precedents, including Full Bench decisions from other High Courts, which support the view that the applicant has the right to choose the forum.

Conclusion:
The court concludes that the applicant has the right to choose between the High Court and the Court of Sessions when seeking bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The directions imposing procedural restrictions on filing bail applications directly in the High Court are found to be unnecessary and contrary to the statutory provisions. The judgment emphasizes the importance of protecting personal liberty and ensuring access to justice without imposing unwarranted restrictions. The reference is answered accordingly, and the matter is directed to be listed before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings.

---