TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Sessions Court First: Precedence in Anticipatory Bail Applications</h1> <h3>Harendra Singh Versus The State of U.P.</h3> Harendra Singh Versus The State of U.P. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court.2. Factual matrix of the case and whether the applicant has shown any special or extraneous reasons for directly approaching the High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Application:The primary legal question addressed is whether an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable directly before the High Court without first exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Court. The court examined the concurrent jurisdiction conferred by Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which allows both the High Court and the Sessions Court to entertain anticipatory bail applications. The court noted that the provision does not explicitly mandate that the Sessions Court must be approached first. However, it is generally desirable for the Sessions Court to be approached first, as it provides the High Court with the advantage of considering the Sessions Court's opinion and helps manage the High Court's workload.The court referred to several rulings, including the Supreme Court's observations in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. The State of Punjab and Sarbajit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, which highlighted the broad and unqualified terms of Section 438 and the wide discretion conferred on the courts. The court also noted the Karnataka High Court's stance in K.C. Iyya Vs. State of Karnataka and Shivasubramanyam Vs. State of Karnataka, emphasizing that the High Court should only entertain such applications under exceptional or special circumstances.Ultimately, the court concluded that while the High Court has the discretion to entertain anticipatory bail applications directly, it should generally direct the applicant to approach the Sessions Court first unless special reasons or circumstances are demonstrated.2. Factual Matrix and Special Reasons:The factual matrix involved an FIR lodged against the applicant under various sections of the IPC for alleged possession of Ganja. The applicant claimed false implication due to a dispute with the Gram Pradhan and mentioned a pending criminal case against him. However, the applicant failed to disclose any urgency or special reasons for directly approaching the High Court.The court found that the applicant did not provide any extraneous or special reasons to justify bypassing the Sessions Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, allowing the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.Conclusion:The court held that anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable before the High Court without first exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Court, except under special or extraneous circumstances. The applicant's failure to demonstrate such circumstances led to the dismissal of the application, with the option to approach the Sessions Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
