RAMESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. L. Singhal, J. Heard Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the ap plicant. Shri Grridhar Nath, learned coun sel for the C. B. I. and the learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) ON 9/10 Feburary, 1997 at 12 night the murder of one Brahma Dull Dwivedi, Ex Minister, U. P. Cabinet was committed First Information Report about the occur rence was lodged at Police Station Kot wali, Farrukhabad. Earlier, the investiga tion was conducted by local police, sub sequently, the matter was handed over to C. B. I, for investigation. After investiga tion the C. B. I, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused-applicant.

(3.) IT appears that the High Court could grant bail to a person who is accused of an offence and is in custody. Thus, the cause of action for bail might be differen tiated from a cause of action for writ peti tion and cause of action for a bail may not arise on the lodging of an FIR unless a particular person is arrested or detained in custody. The materials on record indicated that although FIRs are therein different districts touching the present applicants the basic of the parent FIR is the one lodged by the CBI where only the inves tigation was taken up and there nothing on record to show that investigation was made separately in the different FIRs in the districts. They were detained admitted ly in relation to the CBI FIR as is clear from the averments made in each in dividual bail applications. Thus, the cause of action for every applicant could be or is when he was detained in connection with the investigation/charge-sheet in the CBI FIR that lodged at Lucknow. Seen in this light, the cause of action is only within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. We are of the view that in this case the Judges at the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court may not exercise jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Amalgamation Order and the explanation thereof by the Supreme Court in Nasruddin 's case.