SAVITRI SAMSON Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the stage of consideration of the petition learned Additional State Public Prosecutor raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. He contended that the petitioner has already approached the Sessions Court, Gulbarga, in a petition, Criminal Misc. No. 265/2001, filed under S. 438 Cr. P. C. apprehending her arrest in Cr. Nos. 16/2001 and 17/2001 and as the same is pending adjudication, present petition is not at all maintainable. He also submitted that in fact there is an attempt on the part of the petitioner and her Advocate in the trial Court to mislead the Court. Elaborating the same, he contended that on issuance of notice by the learned Sessions Judge to the learned prosecutor, the filing of two petitions simultaneously was brought to the notice of the Court and when the Court enquired, as is noted in the order sheet, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Sessions Court has submitted that the Crl. Misc. 265/2001 was the only application filed under S. 438 Cr. P. C. for the relief of anticipatory bail, whereas Cr. P. C. 1387 of 2001 (the present petition) filed before the High Court is for seeking direction from the High Court to expedite the hearing of Cr. Misc. 265/2001. As such it is contended by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that when these cases, viz. ,crl. Misc. 265/2001 (pending before the Sessions Court, Gulbarga) and Crl. Petition No. 1387 of 2001 (present petition in the High Court) are filed under S. 438 Cr. P. C. for the same relief by the same petitioner and the attempt of the petitioner to mislead the Court as noted by the learned Sessions Judge in the order sheet, the present second petition be dismissed as not maintainable one and action be taken against the petitioner and the counsel in the trial court for misleading the Court by making false statement.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Ravi Naik appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the facts very much. He fairly contended that, if the facts, as noted by the learned Sessions Judge about the explanation regarding filing of two petitions simultaneously before two courts as stated by his counterpart, are correct, then the conduct of the said counsel would be improper. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel states that, when he enquired about the two simultaneous petitions, he was instructed that as there is surveillance around the petitioner by police, she was not able to instruct her counsel at Gulbarga properly and effectively and as such with last hope she is approaching this Court. The learned counsel submitted that in fact he has mentioned this aspect in his petition itself and there is no suppression or misleading attempt either on his part or on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) HE further contended that as under S. 438 Cr. P. C. both Sessions Court and High Court have been vested with concurrent jurisdiction filing of two petitions simultaneously cannot be a bar especially taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.