GALLALAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The petitioners are shown as accused by the Talikoti Police Station of Bijapur in their Crime No. 15/84. The offence involved in that case is one punishable under S. 302 of the I.P.C.

(2.) The normal practice in vogue about a year has been that petitioners claiming relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Code, would approach the jurisdictional Sessions Judge at the first instance and thereafter if need be, this Court. That practice has been evolved in the light of K. C. Iyya v. State of Karnataka, (1983 (2) Kar. L.J. 8). The following observations of this Court in the above decision may be noted: "Normally a person seeking anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Code should approach the Court of Session in the first instance. This would serve the ends of justice public interest and also the administration of justice. There may be cases with special reasons or involving special circumstances necessitating the person concerned to approach the High Court at the first instance. If the reasons assigned by him to approach the High Court at the first instance are found genuine, such an application may be considered by the High Court. That decision was arrived at after hearing the learned members of the Bar and taking into consideration several authorities including Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab (AIR. 1980 S.C. 1632) and Sher Singh v. Singha Singh 1972, Crl. L.J. 1607) The reasons that had weighed with R. S. Pathak, C.J., (as he then was) of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sher Singh more than 15 years ago in favour of the practice of the petitioners approaching the jurisdictional Sessions Judge at the first instance, though in a situation somewhat different from the present one, hold good even now and in fact there is a greater and compelling reason to follow that reasoning and to adopt a similar practice in the case of petitions under S. 438 of the Code.

(3.) Fortunately, subsequent to K. C. Iyya which was rendered in the month of June 1983, the said practice is being followed by all concerned and that has almost taken the shape of a healthy convention. There are no reasons to deviate from that rule. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction this Court has laid down broad guidelines not merely in K. C. Iyya but also in other cases including Murugesh v. State of Karnataka (1983(2) Kar. L.J., 129) for being followed by Courts of Sessions and Special Judges or Special Courts in Karnataka State in the matter of exercising their powers under S. 438 of the Code.