Mutum Chaoba Singh vs State of Manipur

Manisana Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on behalf of the accused Mutum Churamani Singh.

The accused Churamani Singh was arrested in connection with FIR Case No. 252(7) 84 Lampnel Police Station under Sections 121, 121A and 307, I.P.C., 25(1)(a), Arms Act, 1959 and Section 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A bail petition was moved on behalf of the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal East, Imphal. The learned Magistrate under an order dated 10.12.1984, rejected the bail petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, this petition has been filed in this Court without (sic) approaching the Court of Session.

A short question which arises for consideration is whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the bail petition will be entertained.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that the power of the High Court is of a concurrent jurisdiction with that of the Court of Session. In the present case, the Magistrate rejected the bail petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner and offences under Sections 121, 121A and 307, I.P.C. are triable by the Court Session. In such cases, there must be reason for choosing the High Court. It is desirable that the ordinary practice should be that the Court of Session should be approached first for the reasons that-

(i) any expression of opinion of the High Court may prejudice the trial in the lower Court.

(ii) the appropriate Court to deal with the matter is the Court of Session which is going to try or likely to try the case, and

(iii) the duty cast by the statute on the Court of Session will be deprived of if the bail petition is considered by the High Court directly in the ordinary course.

Therefore, the reason for choosing the High Court is that there must be exceptional or special circumstances. This my view is supported by the decisions reported in AIR 1938 762 (Lahore) Abdul Karim Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1960 MP 34 and Hajialisher Vs. The State of Rajasthan, In Sayad Pir Mohi-ud-din Lal Badshah (supra), it was held that the lower Court should be moved and this is particularly desirable in a bail application where the appropriate Court to deal with the matter is the Court which is going to try the case and where an opinion by a superior Court is likely to prejudice the trial in the Lower Court. In Abdul Karim Khan (supra), it was held that the usual practice is that a person desiring bail should first approach the Lower Court and that there is no bar to the High Court entertaining a bail application directly if pecullar circumstances exist. In Hajialishor (supra) it was held that although the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to grant bail u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is desirable that as an ordinary practice the Lower Court should be moved first in the matter, though in exceptional cases or special circumstances, the High Court may entertain and decide an application for bail.

In the instant case, the petition does not show that there is any exceptional or special reason for entertaining the petition by the High Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also has not submitted any special reason to show that the High Court may entertain the petition.

For the foregoing reasons, the application for bail is rejected. The Petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Court of Session.