KHUSHENDRA BORKAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) PERUSED the order impugned.

(3.) IT appears that an application for transitory anticipatory bail application has been filed before the Sessions Court and the First Additional sessions Judge Balaghat after referring two cases, i. e. , Sachindra Mahawar and others Vs. State and another, Cr. C. P. (M. P.) 89 = 2000 (1) M. P. H. T. 127 and kailashpari Kedia Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 1996 Cr. LR (MP)107 = 1996 MPLJ 847 and found that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction in such type of matters and only the High Court has jurisdiction and because of that he rejected the application. I considered both the cases and found that it is nowhere decided in these cases, that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to grant transitory anticipatory bail in whose jurisdiction, the person apprehends his arrest and his case has been registered in another State. In the case of kailashpati Kedia (supra), the point referred to Larger Bench was that whether any person, residing in local jurisdiction of this Court and having reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, outside, the local jurisdiction of this Court, can apply to this Court under Section 438 of Cr. PC for his release, in the event of arrest.