DEVIDAS RAGHU NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under S. 438 Cr. P. C. is filed by one Devidas Raghu Naik on the grounds that it appears that an incident of illegal felling of trees had taken place and therefore, criminal proceedings had been instituted. Some people who are on inimical terms with the applicant had falsely and maliciously implicated him in the said incident and, therefore, he apprehends that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence regarding the said ducting of the trees. He further states that he has moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Margao, but the same was dismissed by Order dated 10th September, 1987.

(2.) IN view of the above statement that a similar application for the same facts had been moved before the Sessions Court Margao, and dismissed, the question arose whether the present application under S. 438, Cr. P. C. was maintainable.

(3.) MR. Bruto D'costa, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, placing reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Gopinath v. State of Kerala, 1986 Cri LJ 1742 and of the Supreme Court in 'gurcharan Singh v. State', AIR 1978 SC 179, submitted that the powers for granting anticipatory bail are concurrent and both the High Court and the Sessions Judge lave jurisdiction to deal with and dispose such application irrespective of the circumstances of one of them having been moved in the first instance. However, the learned counsel submitted that an account of the decorum of the Courts, if the High Court as first approached and refused to grant anticipatory bail, the Sessions Judge should always dismiss she application and he proper remedy in such circumstances is to approach the High Court itself for variation of its earlier order.