In this petition, the petitioner who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.29064/2024 arising out of Crime No.107/2024 registered by the respondent - police for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 376(2)(K) , 354 , 354(A) , 354(B) , 354(D) , 506 , 509 , 201 of IPC r/w Section 66E of I.T.Act, 200o, has preferred the present petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail and for other reliefs.

2. Heard Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadagi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability / entertainability of the present petition by contending that the same was not maintainable / -3- NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR entertainable by this Court, since the earlier bail petition in Crl.Misc.5509/2024 was filed by the very same petitioner before the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2024, subsequent to which, the bail petition in Crl.P.No.6401/2024 was also dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 21.10.2024 and confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.)No.15292/2024 dated 11.11.2024.

3.1 It is therefore submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent that since the petitioner had earlier approached the trial court, this Court and Apex Court as stated supra, the present petition was not maintainable / entertainable at the instance of the petitioner, who is to be relegated to expedite his remedy before the trial court before approaching this Court by filing the present petition. In support of his contentions, learned Spl.P.P. placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

ILR 2001 KAR 4080;

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

( iv) KWMTA GWRA BRAHMA vs. State of Assam - 2015 SCC OnLine Gau 170;

(v) Phulami Tamang vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 SCC OnLine Del 400;

(vi) Mohalal v. State of Maharashtra - 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 421;

(vii) Sri.Imran H vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.362/2025 Dated 31.01.2025;

(viii) Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court & Anr.

- Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 55/2025 dated 07.02.2025 (SC);

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was undisputedly arrested as long back as on 31.05.2024 and has been in judicial custody for more than 13 months as on today and as such, in view of the long incarceration of the petitioner for more than 13 months, there was no bar / prohibition for the petitioner to maintain the present petition which is entertainable by this Court without relegating the petitioner to approach the trial court and as such, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent may be rejected and the matter be disposed of on merits. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. Initially, the question / issue as to whether the present petition could be taken up by this Bench is came up for consideration, since earlier bail petition in Crl.P.No.6401/2024 was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 21.10.2024. In this context, it is relevant to state that the petitioner has filed a Memo dated 09.07.2024, which reads as under:-

07.02.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55/2025 regarding listing of Successive Bail Petitions before the Concerned No.RJ.No.28/2025 issued by this Hon'ble Court, the Petitioner has no objection for the instant application/petition to be heard before the present Roster deciding matters pertaining Special Court (Where members of the state or central legislature are accused).

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Memo be taken on record for necessary Orders in the interest of justice and equity".

7. The aforesaid Circular issued by this Court reads as under:-

In view of the above, all the concerned officers and officials of the Principal Bench and Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi are hereby directed to post bail petitions arising out of same FIR before the same Judge in the event of bail petitions are assigned to more than one Bench and if on account of change of the roster, the Hon'ble Judge who was earlier dealing with the bail matters is not taking up the bail matters, the above direction is not applicable."

8. In view of the aforesaid Memo filed by the petitioner coupled with the Circular issued by this Court and the judgment of the Apex court in Shekar Prasad Mahto's case supra, the present petition is taken up for consideration by this Court.

9. As stated supra, before proceeding further, it would be necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the respondent as to maintainability / entertainability of the present petition in view of the earlier round of litigation between the parties.

10. In this regard, a perusal of the material on record will indicate that as stated supra, the petitioner had earlier filed -9- NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR Crl.Misc.No.5509/2024 seeking regular bail which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 26.06.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6401/2024, which was also dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 21.10.2024. The said order of this Court was challenged by the petitioner before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No(s).15292/2024 which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide final order dated 11.11.2024.

11. There is no gainsaying the fact that the trial court as well as this Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a petition for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C; however, in order to approach this Court without approaching the trial court first, it would be necessary / essential for the petitioner / bail applicant to plead, prove and establish existence of exceptional / compelling circumstances which would demonstrate as to why he did not avail the remedy of approaching the trial court before approaching this Court seeking bail. A co-ordinate Bech of this Court in an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Dinesh Gowda's case supra, held as under:-

15. As could be seen from the various decisions cited by the Learned High Court Government Pleader of different High Courts, they have also taken the similar view that the parties have to approach the Sessions Court first and after exhausting the remedy they can approach the High Court but for the special reasons, they can also approach the High Court.

16. This Court in K.C. Iyya v. State of Karnataka as noted supra, has dealt with this provision and also the

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court, this Court has not only considered various points raised in this regard, but also considered the effect of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court between Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab and Sarbajit Singh v. The State of Punjab (supra) and also various decisions of the other High Courts and ultimately after interpreting the said provision, it held that the party has to approach the Sessions Court first and then he can approach the High Court or for special reasons, he can approach the High Court.

17. Having looked into the above said rulings and also the principles laid down in Gurubakshsingh 's case, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute with regard to the concurrent powers of the High Court and as well as the Sessions Court.

18. The intention of bringing out Section 438 Cr.P.C. is enabling each and every person in the Country if under extraordinary circumstances under exigencies either to approach the Court of Sessions or the High Court which can be concurrently exercised by both the Courts. Though such remedy, cannot be riddled down by imposing any extraordinary condition but still the Court can refuse to entertain the bail petition and direct the party to approach the Court of Sessions first because Section 438 of Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised as a matter of right by the party, though it can be invoked either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. It is purely the discretionary power of the Court to exercise power depending upon the

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the High Court can direct the party to go first before the Court of Sessions and then come to the High Court though there is no embargo under the statute itself, but the Court can do so on the basis of various factors.

19. It is worth to note here that whenever the concurrent jurisdiction is vested under the statute simultaneously in two Courts of one is superior to the other, then it is appropriate that the party should apply to the subordinate Court first, because the higher Court would have the advantage of considering the opinion of the Sessions Court. More over, the party will get two opportunities to get the remedy cither before the Sessions Court or before the High Court but if once he approaches the High Court, he would run the risk that, the other remedy is not available to him if he failed to get the order in the High Court, he cannot go before the Sessions Court for the same remedy. However, vice versa is possible.

20. It is also to be notable that the Sessions Court will always be nearest and accessible Court to the parties. More over, considering the work load of the Courts in the Country, the superior Courts particularly, the High Courts are flooded with heavy pendency of cases. In order to facilitate the other parties who come before the Court with other cases before the High Court (which has got exclusive Jurisdiction) and also in order to provide alternative remedy to the parties, it is just and necessary that the party shall first approach the Sessions Court under Section.438 of Cr.P.C. so that the High Court can bestow

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR its precious time to deal with other pending cases which requires serious attention and expeditious disposal, where the parties who have come to the High Court after exhausting remedy before the Magistrate Court or the Sessions Court for grant of bail and for other reliefs.

21. The grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail requires appreciation, scrutiny of facts and after going through the entire materials on record. In that context, if the Sessions Court has already applied its mind and passed the appropriate order, it would be easy for the High Court to look into or have a cursory glance of the observation made by the Sessions Court and dispose of the case, with expedition.

22. It should be borne in mind that the Judges have to decide the cases on considering law, justice, equity and good conscience, as they come before them. It should not also be lost sight of the prevailing circumstance to interpret the law in such a manner so that it would be beneficial to the entire judicial system as well as the litigant public. It will not be strange by employing judicial artifices and techniques, the Court can wisely interpret law by adopting a policy which is adequately meet the ends of justice. In such circumstances, the Court has to interpret the law in such a manner which would advance Justice and suppress the mischief. It should not be interpreted in a straight jacket formula while laying down cast iron principles. The Judges have to understand why such statute has been introduced with what intention by the legislators, while considering the particular provision.

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

23. It is also worth to note here that the Sessions Court and the High Court are concurrently empowered to grant bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The object is that if the party who is residing in the remote area can directly approach the Sessions Court which is easily accessible. In order to obviated the very object and purpose, the party has to explain why he did not go to that Court. Otherwise, it amounts to making that provision redundant, so far as the Sessions Courts are concerned. Even once again re- looking into structure of Section 43 8 of Cr.P.C., it is purely the discretionary power given to the Court to entertain the Petition. It is the discretion given to the Courts to exercise that power. When discretion vests with Court, the party has to explain why he has come to the High Court directly, for the discretionary relief under the said provision.

24. Therefore, looking to the above said rulings of different High Courts and particularly, the consistent view taken up by this Court, I do not find any strong reason to deviate from the said view taken by this Court earlier. Hence, I am of the opinion, the point formulated by me noted above has to be answered accordingly.

25. Hence, I answer the point raised as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

26. Having held in such manner, now let me see whether the petitioner has approached this Court with any such extraneous or special reason."

12. Similarly, in Savitri Samson 's case supra, one more co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-

13. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in KWMTA GWRA Brahmas ' case supra, held as under:-

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR the inferior court when occasion arises for exercise of other's jurisdiction in the matter.

(ii) The inferior court normally Will be the nearest accessible court. Therefore, it is necessary that the applications be made before the inferior court.

(iii) The superior court is flooded with heavy pending cases. It would be more appropriate that the inferior court has to be approached in the first instance so that the superior court will have sufficient time to deal with the other pending cases which require serious judicial attention for a just and expeditious disposal.

(vi) The grant of anticipatory bail or bail is by and large requires appreciation and scrutiny of facts to see whether a person/accused is entitled to bail or not.

8. In the above decisions/however, it is laid down that it is not a strict rule that; the party should first approach the Sessions Court and then move the High Court under section 438 of the Cr.PC or 439 of the Cr.PC . However, in exceptional circumstances it is said that the party can move the High Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court.

9. Per contra, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in para 8 of its judgment in Onkar Nath Asrawal v. State , 1976 Crl. LJ 1142 has made the following observations:

10. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Mohan Lai; etc. v. Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36 has held that it is not necessary that the applicant should be asked to apply to the Sessions Judge before making an application to the High Court for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.PC. However, in para 11 of its judgment the High Court has made the following observations:

"11. A bare reading of the section shows that no restriction, unlike sections 397(3) and 399(3) , has been placed on a person wishing to move the High Court for anticipatory bail. A person is not required to move the Sessions Judge first. It is true that under the old Code whenever a concurrent jurisdiction was conferred on more than one court, the inferior court was expected, as a matter of practice, to be approached first. However, in the case of anticipatory bail to force a person to move the Sessions Judge first may result in uncalled for curtailment of his right. For various reasons a person may like to move the High Court straightway and may not like to; approach the Sessions Judge. Since the section relates to the liberty of a person, we would not like to impose any kind of restriction on his right to move the High Court in the first instance".

11. The High Court of Calcutta in Diptendu Nayek v. State of West Bengal , 1993 CWN 229 has held that an accused can move anticipatory bail before the High Court even though his application under section 438 of the Cr.PC is rejected by the Sessions Judge: while doing so, the petitioner cannot apply under the revisional jurisdiction

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR of the High Court but can apply under section 438 of the Cr.PC.

12. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Chendrasekhara Rao v. Y.V. Kamala Kumari , 1993 Crl. LJ 3508 has held that the provisions of section 438 of the Cr.PC conferred power both in the High Court and the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. As for the denial of moving the High Court in the first instance, the High Court in para 22 of its judgment has made the following observations:

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

13. The High Court of Kerala in para 12 and 13 of its judgment in Balan v. State of Kerala , 2004 Crl. LJ 3427 has, made the following observations:

14. After carefully analysing the ratio laid down in the above decisions the salient aspect that emerges is to the effect that--

(i) Although under section 438 of the Cr.PC a person/accused is given the right to move an anticipatory bail either before the Court of Sessions or the High Court it is, always at the discretion of the High Court that whether to entertain the

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR application or not. There is no absolute right on the person/accused to insist that the High Court should decide his application on merits: it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

(ii) Insofar as the provisions of section 439 are concerned no option to choose the forum is given to the person/accused unlike tinder section 438 . When the inferior court and the superior court are invested with concurrent jurisdiction/normally a person/accused has to exhaust his remedy before the inferior court. If the person/accused is aggrieved by the order of the inferior court then he can approach the High Court, in which event the High Court will have the benefit of considering the reasons and opinion given by the inferior court. The objective of investing concurrent jurisdiction in the Sessions Court and in the High Court is basically for the reason that the Legislature reposed trust in the wisdom of the Sessions Judges who by their longstanding experience would have acquired and equipped with necessary skills to exercise the powers under the concurrent jurisdiction. The suitable and eligible Sessions Judges would also be elevated to the High Court. The object of investing concurrent jurisdiction is to share the serious responsibility and powers of the High Court.

(iii) For consideration of bail applications a lot of miscellaneous work is to be done-like going through the case-diary, remand applications, statements of the witnesses, etc. Many a time the investigating officers from different places of the state have to be summoned for

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR production case-diaries and it becomes a more time- consuming exercise. The Sessions Courts which are nearest to the police stations in its division where investigations are done it is easy for the Sessions Court to summon the case-diaries and investigation papers for considering the bail application. Therefore, it is necessary that the Sessions Court which is invested with the concurrent jurisdiction could effectively deal with all preliminary work of scrutiny of the investigation material while considering the bail application. In the event of rejection of bail application by the Sessions Court the persons/accused can still move the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.PC or bail under section 439 of the Cr.PC, as the case may be.

(iv) The High Court in its writ jurisdiction will have to decide the cases involving the challenge to the actions of the Government and the statutory authorities, etc. The High Court as a court of appeal and second appeal will have to deal with civil appeals, criminal appeals. Besides, the High Court has revisional and inherent jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure . The. High Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India will have to consider the orders of the tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities; besides, shall have to consider the orders passed by the Civil Courts in the matter of interlocutory application. The quality of work the High Court does is of very important nature which requires laying down the law on the varied and several cases that come before the High Court in variety of cases.

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

(v) The number of pendency of cases at the High Court would be usually high and a large chunk of the judicial time has to be devoted to several subjects where questions of law have to be resolved and ratio has to be laid down as precedent to be followed by the lower court. Therefore, in order to avoid the avoidable additional burden it is just and necessary. that a person/accused be asked to approach the Sessions Court: if he is able to get the relief before the Sessions Court the question of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court would not arise.

(vi) The practice under the- Code of Criminal Procedure earlier to the 1973s was that in the matters of revision and bail concurrent jurisdiction was invested in the High Court and the Sessions Court. It was the practice that a person/accused had to exhaust his remedy before the Sessions Court before he invoked the revisional jurisdiction or sought bail under section 498 of the Cr.PC before the High Court.

15. The profile of the filing of bail application before the this court from the year 2004 to 2014 (31.10.2014) is as follows.

16. The above figures disclose that yearly there is great deal of increase in the number of filing of bail application directly before this court and it is consuming a large chunk of the judicial time for disposal of bail applications. Almost 2-3 benches are regularly constituted to deal with the bail applications. There is huge pendency of criminal appeal before the Division Bench, and criminal appeal, criminal revision and criminal petition (482 of the Cr.PC ) before the Single Judge, besides there is huge pendency of civil appeals. Not usually this High Court has always functioned with full sanctioned strength. There are currently three outlying benches where Judges have to be deputed to deal with the work at the outlying benches.

17. It is, therefore, necessary that normally a person/accused should file an anticipatory bail application under section 438 of the Cr.PC or a bail application under section 439 of the Cr.PC before the Sessions Court and thereafter he can approach the High Court. However, this is not an inviolable rule. In exceptional circumstances a person/accused can directly approach the High Court. The following are the circumstances under which a person/accused can directly approach the High Court.

(i) When a person/accused from other State has to move an application for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.PC, if it is convenient for him to move such application before the High Court directly, which is nearer

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR from point of distance, such in the application filed before the High Court need not be rejected on the ground that he can approach the Sessions Court unless the Sessions Court is also located in the same place.

(ii) Whenever in a Sessions' jurisdiction a particular incident or crime has attracted a lot of public and media attention with an adverse public opinion having been built up against the person/accused in such cases section 438 , Cr.PC applications and section 439 , Cr.PC applications can be filed directly before the High Court.

(iii) When the Sessions Court has already rejected an application for grant of bail under section 438 / 439 of the Cr.PC where one of the persons/accused is similarly placed it is not necessary that the similarly-placed person/accused should approach the Sessions Court for grant of bail; he can file an application before the High Court under section 438 / 439 of the Cr.PC.

18. The above circumstances are illustrative and not exhaustive. There could be other exceptional circumstances which would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

19. In view of the reasons and discussions made above it is held that normally a person/accused should exhaust his remedy under section 438 or 439 of the Cr.PC before the Sessions Judge before making an application before the High Court under section 438 or 439 of the Cr.PC . However in exceptional illustrated circumstances a person/accused can approach the High Court without exhausting his remedy before the Sessions Judge.

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

20. With the above observations we are now dealing with the bail application in question.

21. The petitioner is in custody for committing offence under sections 387 , 507, read with section 34 of the IPC, with the case crime number 56/2014 on the file of Serfanguri police station in Kokrajhar District.

22. It appears that grave allegations are made in the complaint. The petitioner has filed an application without exhausting his remedy of filing an application before the Sessions Court. For the reasons stated above it is just and necessary that the petitioner should exhaust his remedy before the Sessions Judge and thereafter approach the High Court. Accordingly the petition is disposed of.

14. A similar view has been expressed by the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court in Phulmai Tamang and Mohanlal's cases supra respectively.

15. In a recent judgment of this Court in Imran's case supra, the co-ordinate Bench held as under:-

16. In the facts of the instant case on hand, despite having referred to the dismissal of the earlier bail application by the trial court and this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court as stated supra, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved or established exceptional or compelling circumstances as to why he is not in a position to approach the trial court or not be relegated to the trial court before approaching this Court by way of the present second successive bail petition; in other words, in the absence of any reasons whatsoever pleaded, proved or established from the pleadings and material on record, much less, exceptional or compelling reasons for not approaching the trial court, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out valid or sufficient ground to maintain the present petition before this Court without exhausting his

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR remedy of approaching the trial court, especially when the first bail application was undisputedly filed before the trial court which was rejected as stated supra. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is not entertainable at this stage without the petitioner exhausting his remedy by approaching the trial court.

The judgment of the Apex Court in Kanumuri 's case supra, relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the said judgment , the Apex Court held as under:-

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

17. As is clear from the aforesaid judgment, the same was rendered in the factual matrix emerging in the said case, inasmuch as apart from the fact that there was a delay in the matter, there were two medical reports of the accused / appellant which was taken out of by the Apex Court while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner / applicant need not be relegated to exhaust his remedy before the trial court, thereby indicating that the said judgment rendered in the facts of the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case, particularly when no exceptional reasons / grounds have been pleaded or established by the petitioner.

18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Manish Sisodia's case supra, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR does not succeed before the trial court, thereafter he approaches the High Court and in the event he also does not succeed before the High Court, then only he would be entitled to approach this Court. He therefore submitted that the present appeals deserve to be rejected thereby relegating the appellant to approach the trial court afresh. To buttress his submission, Shri Raju relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala .

28. Before considering the submissions of the learned ASG with regard to maintainability of the present appeals on account of the second order of this Court, it will be apposite to refer to certain observations made by this Court in its first order, which read thus:

29. A perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that this Court was concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant. After considering various earlier pronouncements, this Court emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , this Court observed that Section 436A Cr. P.C. should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court recorded the assurance given by the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6- 8 months. This Court, after recording the said submissions, granted liberty to the appellant to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or in case the trial was protracted and proceeded at a snail's pace in next three months. This Court observed that if any application was filed, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail applications including its own judgment. It further observed that the observations made regarding the right to speedy trial will be taken into consideration.

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

30. Since the trial proceeded at a snail's pace in the period after three months of the first order of this Court, the appellant filed the second application for bail before the trial court. The same came to be rejected by the trial court on 30th April 2024. It can thus be seen that it took a period of almost three months for the trial court to decide the said application. By the time the appellant approached the High Court, a period of more than six months had elapsed from the date on which the first order of this Court was passed. The same also came to be rejected on 21st May 2024.

31. When the appellant approached this Court in the second round and when the second order was passed by this Court on 4th June 2024, a period of 7 months and 4 days had elapsed from the date of the first order of this Court. However, this Court took into consideration the statement of the learned Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed expeditiously and at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024 and thereafter, the trial court would be free to proceed with the trial. It, after observing that "having regard to the fact that the period of 6-8 months fixed by this Court in its first order having not come to an end", disposed of the petitions with liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/charge-sheet.

32. It could thus be seen that this Court had granted liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet. Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and thereafter the High Court and

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of "Snake and Ladder". The trial court and the High Court have already taken a view and in our view relegating the appellant again to the trial court and the High Court would be an empty formality. In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post.

33. A careful reading of the second order of this Court dated 4th June 2024 would show that this Court recorded that they did not propose to go into the arguments or dwell upon it in view of the liberty granted in the first order of this Court. Thereafter, this Court noticed the assurance of the learned Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024. This Court further observed in its second order that since the period of 6-8 months fixed by it in its first order had not come to an end, it was inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer. It will be a travesty of justice to construe that the carefully couched order preserving the right of the appellant to revive his prayer for grant of special leave against the High Court order, to mean that he should be relegated all the way down to the trial court. The memorable adage, that procedure is a hand maiden and not a mistress of justice rings loudly in our ears.

35. In our view, the liberty reserved by this Court vide its second order, to revive the request of the appellant will have to be construed as a liberty given by this Court to

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/charge-sheet. Undisputedly, the present appeals have been filed after the final complaint/charge-sheet has been filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the preliminary objection and the same is rejected."

19. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment will also indicate that the same was rendered in the peculiar factual situation arising therein and by noticing that liberty had been given by the Apex Court itself in its earlier orders coupled with the facts and circumstances noticed by the Apex Court referred to supra. In fact, the said petition before the Apex Court arose out of the third bail application filed by the accused and there were earlier orders and directions passed / issued by the Apex Court including liberty to file a fresh bail application, cumulative effect of which was considered by the Apex Court to come to the conclusion that there was no necessity to relegate the petitioner therein to the trial court especially after long lapse of time, during which, the petitioner continued to remain in judicial custody. The said judgment based on specific facts and circumstances also would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, especially when the compelling circumstances, which prevented the petitioner from approaching

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR the trial court have neither been pleaded nor proved / established and as such, no reliance can be placed upon even on this judgment by the petitioner in support of his claim, which cannot be accepted.

20. Insofar as the judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal 's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:-

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR High Court to serve as a secondary avenue if the Trial Court denies bail for inadequate reasons. This approach is beneficial for both the accused and the prosecution; if bail is granted without proper consideration, the prosecution too can seek corrective measures from the High Court.

45. However, superior courts should adhere to this procedural recourse from the outset. If an accused approaches the High Court directly without first seeking relief from the Trial Court, it is generally appropriate for the High Court to redirect them to the Trial Court at the threshold. Nevertheless, if there are significant delays following notice, it may not be prudent to relegate the matter to the Trial Court at a later stage. Bail being closely tied to personal liberty, such claims should be adjudicated promptly on their merits, rather than oscillating between courts on mere procedural technicalities.

46. This issue is however, more or less academic in the instant case as the High Court did not relegate the Appellant to the Trial Court at the preliminary stage. Since notice was issued and the parties were apparently heard on merits by the High Court, we do not deem it necessary at this stage to relegate the Appellant to the Trial Court even though filing of a charge sheet is a change in the circumstances."

21. In the concurring judgment by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, His Lordship held as under:-

P.C. is concurrent, held that merely because the High Court was approached by the appellant without approaching the trial court would not mean that the High Court could not have considered the bail application of the appellant. In the facts of that case, this Court opined that the High Court ought to have considered the bail application of the appellant on merit and decided the same. However, having regard to the fact that much time had lapsed since passing of the order of the High Court and there were subsequent medical reports of the appellant, this Court did not relegate the appellant back to the High Court but considered the bail application of the appellant on merit herein itself. This Court held thus:

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR case of Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 3296 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024:

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR Such submission of Mr. Raju was rejected by this Court. Adverting to the earlier order of this Court dated 04.05.2024, this Court in Manish Sisodia observed as under:

22. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment, earlier judgments of the Apex Court in Kanumuri's and Manish Sisodia's cases have been followed and applied to the facts of the said cases stated supra, the facts of the present case on hand are completely different and the said judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. It is also pertinent to note that even the aforesaid judgments do not obviate or dispense with the requirement of approaching the trial court and exhausting the remedy in the first instance before approaching this Court and in order to do so, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to make out valid reasons / exceptional circumstances as to why he did not approach the trial court earlier. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the various contentions urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

NC: 2025:KHC:25042 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2025 HC-KAR

23. In my considered opinion, having regard to the material on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate to relegate the petitioner to expedite his remedy by approaching the trial court and reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner thereafter to approach this Court in accordance with law.

24. In the result, I pass the following:-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.