LatestLaws.

com
Court No. - 1

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25984 of 2019

Applicant :- Prem Chauhan

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Sri K.K.Dwivedi, Advocate, has filed his an affidavit along with his
Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant today in Court, which is taken
on record.
Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
K.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri S.K.Pal, learned
Government Advocate, assisted by Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
By means of present 438 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant prays that he
may be granted anticipatory bail directing the SHO/Investigating Officer
of Police Station Sector 39 Noida to release him on bail in the event of his
arrest in connection with and arising out of investigation of Case Crime
No.262 of 2019, under Sections 376 & 452 I.P.C., P.S. Sector-39 Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It appears from the record that the applicant had directly approached this
Court for seeking anticipatory bail without approaching the Court of
Sessions and on a query made from learned counsel for the applicant he
admitted the said fact and submitted that under section 438 Cr.P.C., this
Court as well as Court of Sessions has concurrent jurisdiction, hence the
applicant has directly approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and
further tried to justify the filing of the present anticipatory bail application
directly before this Court.
After having examined the submission of learned counsel for the parties
on the said point, this Court is of the view that though it is true that this
Court as well as Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction for
entertaining an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. but if the anticipatory
bail application of the applicant is rejected by this Court then the right of
the applicant for moving the Court of Sessions would be declined for all
time to come and he may loose one opportunity of seeking appropriate
remedy from Court of Sessions provided under the law, therefore, it is
desirable that the applicant first approach the Court of Sessions and if he is
 LatestLaws.com
aggrieved by the order of the Court of Sessions then he is at liberty to
approach this Court challenging the order of the Court of Sessions.
Moreover, if the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected by
the Court of Sessions then too there is no apprehension of applicant being
taken into custody and sent to jail unlike as provided under Section 439
Cr.P.C.
Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the present anticipatory
bail application may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the
applicant to first avail the appropriate remedy before the Court of Sessions
to which learned Government Advocate states that he has no objection.
In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to first approach the Court of
Sessions concerned for seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case of the applicant
on merits.
Order Date :- 1.7.2019
NS