(1.) The Registry has raised an objection as to maintainability of this bail application on the ground that the applicant without first approaching the Sessions Court has directly filed this bail application before this Court under Section 438, Cr.P.C. A perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicate that concurrent powers are vested in the High Court as well as the Sessions Court, permitting the applicant concerned to choose his Forum without compelling him to first approach the Sessions Court.
(2.) The insistence of approaching the Court lower in the hierarchy of Courts is for the sake of convenience and to ensure the advantage to the High Court of availability of a reasoned order of rejection of bail by the Sessions Court. Such a course of procedure adopted for the sake of convenience ensures proper administration of justice at the level of the High Court, which is not only benefited by the availability of the reasoned order of the Sessions Court, but is also prevented from getting overburdened by directly filing bail application before it.
(3.) The above said view finds support in an earlier decision of this Court in Single Bench in the case of Manisha Neema Vs. State of MP, 2003 2 MPLJ 587, which has considered various earlier judicial pronouncement on the point. The decision of the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sudip Sen vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 CrLJ 4628 and another decision of in the case of In re Puritipati Jagga Reddy reported in ,: 1979 AIR(AP) 146 are being profitably quoted in support of the proposition that the statute does not bar filing of bail applications directly to the High Court under Section 438/439 of Cr.P.C., but it is only for the sake of convenience as stated above that the course of action of insisting the person concerned to approach the Court lower in the hierarchy of Courts is adopted to enable High Court to have the advantage of availability of a reasoned order of the Sessions Court.