TWINKLE SONI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these bail applications have been placed before this Division Bench mainly for the reason that this Court has decided in Bail Application No. 6102 of 2009 vide order dated 2nd September, 2009 that the petitioner seeking bail even earlier rejected by this Court has to approach the Sessions Court, whereas in a Bail Application No. 6813 of 2009, vide order dated 10th October, 2009, it has been held by this Court that there is no need for the petitioner, seeking bail, to approach the Sessions Court, even after the bail application, is rejected by this Court and such defect which was pointed out by the Registry of this Court was ignored and therefore, these bail applications have been referred to the Division Bench of this Court on the following issues :

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that looking to the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not obligatory on the part of the petitioners to approach the Sessions Court first, on the contrary an option is left to the petitioners whether to approach the Sessions Court or to approach this Court, as both the Courts have concurrent jurisdiction for granting bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that initially, the petitioners had approached the Sessions Court and the bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, these petitioners had approached this Court and this Court has also rejected the bail applications preferred by these petitioners, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now, thereafter again, the petitioners want to approach this Court and in these set of circumstances, especially, when this Court has already rejected the bail applications of both the petitioners, it is not obligatory on the part of the petitioners, under any law, to approach the Sessions Court. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also relied upon the decisions rendered by various Courts and these decisions are as under :

(3.) I have heard learned A. P. P., who has vehemently submitted that it is true that there is no legal obligation under Section 439 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure that even after the rejection of the previous bail application, the petitioners have to approach the Sessions Court, but, it is also advisable to send such type of the petitioners to the Sessions Court mainly for the reason that latest factual aspects like further investigation, stage of trial or such other information, whether any person is joined as accused by the Sessions Court, which are not referred in charge-sheet, such type of factual aspects can be made known to this Court otherwise, if directly allowed the petitioners to approach to this Court, lot of time can be consumed in finding of the facts and from distant areas, police shall have to be called by the A. P. P. for verification of the facts, whereas Sessions Court being a local Court can verify the facts of the case easily and therefore, the bail applications can be decided earliest by the Sessions Court.