9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Maintainability of the present petition when another petition is pending before the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. Analysis: The Additional State Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition, arguing that the petitioner had already approached the Sessions Court in a separate petition under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. The Prosecutor contended that the present petition before the High Court was not maintainable as it sought the same relief as the petition pending before the Sessions Court. The Prosecutor accused the petitioner and her Advocate of attempting to mislead the Court by filing two petitions simultaneously. The Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, acknowledged the facts presented by the Prosecutor but explained that the petitioner faced difficulties in instructing her Counsel due to police surveillance, leading her to approach the High Court as a last resort. The Counsel argued that filing two petitions simultaneously was permissible under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. due to the unique circumstances of the case. The Court examined the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr. P.C., which grants both the Sessions Court and the High Court concurrent jurisdiction to consider bail applications. However, the Court clarified that the use of the word "or" in the section indicates that bail applications should be filed before either the Sessions Court or the High Court, not simultaneously before both. The Court emphasized that while the High Court can entertain bail applications under exceptional circumstances, the general practice should involve approaching the lower Court first. The Court stressed the importance of avoiding any expression of opinion that could prejudice the trial in the lower Court. The Court noted that the Sessions Court is usually the initial point of contact for bail applications, ensuring a more efficient process and allowing the High Court to review the reasons given by the lower Court if necessary. Ultimately, the Court exercised judicial discretion by dismissing the present petition as withdrawn, permitting the petitioner to approach the High Court if needed in the future. The Court directed the Sessions Court to expedite the pending application within a week. The Court expressed disapproval of the misleading attempt made by the Advocate before the Sessions Court regarding the nature of the petition filed before the High Court, emphasizing the need to avoid such practices. In conclusion, the Court emphasized the importance of following the proper procedure for filing bail applications and highlighted the significance of approaching the lower Court first in most cases. The judgment underscored the need to avoid misleading practices and ensure a fair and efficient legal process.
|
