Concurrent bail jurisdiction requires first approaching the Sessions Court absent exceptional circumstances for direct High Court intervention.

Concurrent bail jurisdiction does not permit routine bypass of the Sessions Court for interim protection in aid of anticipatory bail. The settled practice is that the higher forum should ordinarily be approached only after the lower forum has first been moved, unless exceptional circumstances justify direct recourse; none were shown here, so the petitioner was required to seek anticipatory bail before the competent lower court. The petition also became infructuous because the foreign proceedings had been dropped and the passport released, so the immediate grievance no longer survived.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a petition seeking quashing of a look out circular could be entertained for interim protection in aid of anticipatory bail without first approaching the Court of Sessions; (ii) whether the petition had become infructuous on account of subsequent events.

Issue (i): Whether a petition seeking quashing of a look out circular could be entertained for interim protection in aid of anticipatory bail without first approaching the Court of Sessions.

Analysis: The available remedy for a person apprehending arrest in a non-bailable case is to seek anticipatory bail. Although the High Court and the Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction under the bail provisions, the settled practice is that the superior forum should ordinarily be approached only after the inferior forum has first been moved, except in exceptional circumstances. This self-imposed restraint preserves judicial discipline, avoids unnecessary bypassing of the Sessions Court, and prevents avoidable prejudice arising from premature observations at the higher level. No exceptional circumstances were shown to justify direct recourse to the High Court.

Conclusion: The petitioner was required to approach the Trial Court first for anticipatory bail, and direct intervention by the High Court was not warranted on the facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition had become infructuous on account of subsequent events.

Analysis: The proceedings initiated abroad had been dropped and the passport had been released, so the immediate grievance underlying the petition no longer survived.

Conclusion: The petition had become infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on the merits of interim protection and was disposed of after the cause of action complained of had ceased to subsist, leaving the petitioner free to pursue anticipatory bail before the competent court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concurrent bail jurisdiction exists, the High Court should ordinarily be approached only after the Sessions Court has been moved, save in exceptional circumstances.

---