2016 (11) TMI 1760 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - extortion of money - Shahrukh was alleged to have hit the complainant with iron rod on his head and Salman also assaulted the complainant and ran behind the brother of the complainant with knife to kill him - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - Indisputably, the jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail is the concurrent jurisdiction of High Court as well as the Court of Session. But it would always be advisable to approach the court of session first to avail this remedy and further in the High Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. In the considered opinion of this court is not inclined to comment upon the submissions and contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner at this stage, especially when the petitioner has remedy to take all pleas before the court of session - this court is not inclined to entertain the present bail application at this stage. However, the petitioner will be at a liberty to approach the Court of Session and to take all pleas, as taken in the present petition. The present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the Court of Session for seeking regular bail.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for FIR No. 609/2016 under Section 384/308/34 of IPC.
2. Allegations of assault, extortion, and injuries leading to the registration of the FIR.
3. Arrest and involvement of the accused individuals.
4. Dismissal of bail applications for other accused individuals.
5. Defense's contention of false implication and alternative narrative of events.
6. Legal arguments regarding the nature of offenses under Sections 383, 384, and 308 of IPC.
7. Jurisdiction for granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the need to approach the Court of Session first.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a case registered under Sections 384/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed based on allegations of assault and extortion by the petitioner and his family members against the complainant. The complainant stated that the petitioner and his relatives demanded money, assaulted him, and caused injuries, leading to his admission to the hospital. The petitioner, along with his brothers, was accused of various violent acts, resulting in the registration of the case.

During the investigation, some of the accused individuals were arrested, and the petitioner surrendered after his anticipatory bail was rejected. The bail applications of other accused individuals were dismissed by the court. The petitioner claimed false implication, stating he was not present during the incident and provided an alternative version of events where the complainant instigated the altercation. The defense argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant were minor and that the offenses charged were not fully established.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and emphasized the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session for granting bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. However, it was noted that it is advisable to approach the Court of Session first before seeking bail in the High Court. Therefore, the court declined to entertain the bail application at that stage and directed the petitioner to approach the Court of Session for seeking regular bail, preserving the right to present all arguments before that court.

In conclusion, the judgment disposed of the bail application, instructing the petitioner to pursue the matter in the Court of Session. The decision highlighted the importance of following the proper legal procedure for seeking bail and refrained from commenting on the merits of the case at that initial stage.