MUTUM CHAOBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on behalf of the accused Mutum Churamani Singh.

(2.) THE accused Churamani Singh was arrested in connection with, FIR Case No. 252(7) 84 Lampnel Police Station under Sections 121, 121A and 307, I.P.C., 25(1)(a), Arms Act, 1959 and Section 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A bail petition was moved on behalf of the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal East, Imphal. The learned Magistrate under an order dated 10.12.1984, rejected the bail petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, this petition has been filed in this Court without (sic) approaching the Court of Session.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that the power of the High Court is of a concurrent jurisdiction with that of the Court of Session. In the present case, the Magistrate rejected the bail petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner and offences under Sections 121, 121A and 307, I.P.C. are triable by the Court Session. In such cases, there must be reason for choosing the High Court. It is desirable that the ordinary practice should be that the Court of Session should be approached first for the reasons that -