9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1817 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of application before sessions court - concurrent jurisdiction of High Court as well as Sessions Court to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - On perusal of the judgment in MUBARIK AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. 2018 (11) TMI 1847 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT which has clearly dealt with question of concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and answered it it appears that law is well settled that if a party chooses to move such application directly before the High Court that has to be entertained directly since he can not be compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of Sessions Court first and then come to the High Court as it would amount to limiting his right and liberty under the Constitution of India. It is very clear that the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction and no person can be restrained to move application before the High Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. directly therefore it is held that the application filed by the applicants in all three cases are maintainable. The applications are admitted for hearing.
Issues:
- Maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed directly before the High Court. Analysis: The judgment focused on the interpretation of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court to entertain applications for anticipatory bail. The counsels for the applicants argued that both the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain such applications, citing the general principle of interpretation and relevant case laws. Specifically, reference was made to judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court emphasizing the importance of not curtailing an individual's right to directly approach the High Court for anticipatory bail. The State counsel, on the other hand, contended that the practice traditionally involves individuals first seeking anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court before approaching the High Court. They relied on a judgment from the Karnataka High Court which suggested approaching the Sessions Court first for accessibility reasons. However, the judgment in question clarified that this does not negate the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the court held that based on settled legal principles and the discussions presented, both the High Court and the Sessions Court indeed have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasized that individuals cannot be restricted from directly filing such applications before the High Court, as it would impinge on their rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court deemed the applications filed by the applicants in all three cases as maintainable and admitted them for further hearing, directing the State counsel to procure the case diary for final proceedings.
|
