CRM(M) No.354/2025 1 Through the medium of present petition, the petitioners have challenged two FIRs: one bearing No. 27/2025 for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNSS registered with Police Station, Dharamsala, Rajouri; and the other bearing FIR No. 28/2025 for offences under Sections 333, 115(2), 296, 79, 351(2) of the BNSS registered with the same Police Station. While FIR No. 27/2025 has been lodged by respondent No.3 against all the petitioners, FIR No. 28/2025 has been lodged by respondent No.4 against petitioner No.1 only. The subject matter of the incident in FIR No. 27/2025 pertains to 09.03.2025, whereas the subject matter of the incident in FIR No. 28/2025 pertains to 04.03.2025. 2 2 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to satisfy this Court as to how a joint petition for challenging two FIRs on behalf of the petitioners is maintainable. Faced with this situation, he has sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. 3 However, this Court feels that the issue needs to be determined in the light of facts peculiar to the present petition. As already stated, the incidents which are the subject matter of present petitions are distinct from each other. Even the complainants in the two FIRs are also different. While FIR No 27/2025 has been lodged by respondent No.3, FIR No.28/2025 has been lodged by respondent No.4.The accused persons implicated in the aforesaid two FIRs are also not identical. In FIR No. 27/2025, all the petitioners have been impleaded as accused, whereas in FIR No.28/2025, only petitioner No.1 has been impleaded as an accused. A single petition challenging two different FIRs is not maintainable when the FIRs arise from distinct causes of action. Each FIR represents a separate incident based on a separate set of facts. Therefore, each of the two FIRs, which are the subject matter of this petition, has to be dealt with individually, particularly when there is no commonality of facts or law involved. As the impugned FIRs are based on distinct and unrelated incidents, a single petition is not maintainable. Thus, the instant petition is otherwise also not maintainable. 4 However, having regard to the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought permission to withdraw this petition, the same is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the impugned FIRs by filing separate petitions.

Bail App No. 112/2025 1 Though the medium of present application, the applicant is seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in FIR No. 28/2025 for offences under Sections 333, 115(2), 296, 79, 351(2) of BNSS registered with Police Station, Dharamsala, Rajouri .

2 It appears that the petitioner has approached this Court directly, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 484 of BNSS without first approaching the Court of Sessions.

3 Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this bail application, on the ground that there are no special circumstances in this case that would persuade this Court to entertain the present bail application without asking the petitioner to approach the Court of first instance. He has submitted that the applicant had, in fact, approached the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri by way of an anticipatory bail application, which is still pending before the said Court.

4 With regard to maintainability of the present bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bail application filed by the applicant before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, has been withdrawn, though this fact does not find mention in the instant application. He has further submitted that this Court, in the case of Khalid Hussain and others vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir, (Bail App No. 223/2023, decided on 20.11.2023), has observed that there is no bar to the High Court entertaining a bail application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C without the applicant having first approached the Court of Sessions. 4 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this application and perused record of the case. 6 The issue as to whether or not, an application for grant of bail, either under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, or under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C should be entertained by the High Court without the applicant first exhausting the remedy of approaching the Court of Sessions has been dealt with by this Court as well as by several High Courts across the Country, and presently the issue is under consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Gauhati High Court Bar Association vs. State of Assam and others , (2023) LiveLaw SC 177.It would be apt to refer to some of these decisions. 7 The High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Smt. Savitri Samso vs. State of Karnataka , 2001 CriLJ 3164, has, while dealing with the issue, observed as under:

8. Again, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Smt. Manisha Neema vs. State of M. P , 2003(2) MPLJ 587,while dealing with the issue, made the following observations:

9 The Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Goyal vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Bail Application No.1565/2012 , decided on 19th of November, 2012), has also taken the same view.

10 This Court, in the case of Khursheed Ahmad Kanna vs UT of J&K (Bail App No. 93/2021, decided on06.10.2021), has also taken the view that although Section 439 of the Cr. P. C confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Sessions Court, an application should ordinarily be filed before the Sessions Court at the first instance and not directly before the High Court. It has been further held that, for filing an application directly before the High Court, the applicant has to demonstrate and satisfy the High Court that 7 there exist exceptional, rare, and unusual reasons for the applicant to approach the High Court directly.

11 A similar view has been taken by two other Benches of this Court in the cases of Rouf Ahmad Mir vs SSP & another (Bail App No. 64/2022, decided on 03.06.2022) and Ali Mohd. vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others (Bail App No. 13/2022, decided on 18.04.2022) However, in Khalid Hussain's case(supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has expressed reservations about the view taken by this Court in the afore noted cases and observed that there is no bar to the High Court to entrain a bail application under Section 438 of the Cr. P. C directly without asking the applicant to approach the Court of Sessions in the first instance. However, the learned Single Judge in the said case has, instead of referring the matter to a Larger Bench, thought it appropriate to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gauhati High Court Bar Association 's case(supra).

12 There cannot be any dispute with regard to the legal position that both the High Court and the Sessions Court are vested with concurrent jurisdiction so far as deciding a bail application under Sections 482 or Section 483 of the BNSS are concerned. There can also be no dispute with regard to the legal position that the power of the High Court to entertain a bail application, either regular or anticipatory, are unfettered. However, for more than one reason it is desirable that, ordinarily, an applicant should approach the Court of first instance before moving the High Court. This practice is desirable because if an applicant approaches the High Court directly and is unsuccessful in obtaining the relief, it is likely to prejudice him or her, if at a later stage, he or she approaches the Court of first instance. There is another practical reason for 8 supporting this view. The Sessions Courts are generally nearer to and accessible for the accused and, therefore, it would be more convenient for the accused to approach the Sessions Court in the first instance. This would not only provide easier access to the Court for the accused, but would also lead to the speedy disposal of the case. In a given case, if an accused is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court, it is open to him to approach the High Court by way of another application, even without there being any change in circumstances, as the High Court, being a superior Court, has the jurisdiction to entertain a bail application even after rejection of the same by the Court of Sessions. Another advantage of approaching the Court of Sessions in the first instance is that once the bail application is dealt with by the Court of Sessions, the High Court will have the benefit of apprising itself of the considerations that prevailed with the Court of Sessions in taking a particular view.

13. The Practice of not entertaining bail applications directly in the High Court is not based upon any statutory bar, rather it is a sound exercise of judicial discretion. In this regard analogy can be drawn from reluctance of High Court to entertain writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in cases where alternative efficacious remedy is available to a litigant. Though there is no bar to the High Court to entertain such petitions even in cases where an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, still then the High Courts have put a self-imposed restraint in entertaining petitions in such cases. By the same logic and reason it is desirable that normally an applicant should be asked to approach the court of sessions before entertaining his bail application by the High Court. Doing so would only be a sound 9 exercise of discretion by the High Court as it would be a self-imposed fetter on the power of the High Court and not a case of rewriting the provision of BNSS which vests concurrent jurisdiction upon High Court and the Court of Sessions in the matters relating to grant of bail. In fact no absolute bar to entertain a bail application directly by the High Court is sought to be created by adopting the aforesaid course. In appropriate case the High Court would be free to entertain bail applications directly.

14. Apart from the above, if the High Courts start entertaining each and every bail application directly without asking the applicant to first approach the Court of Sessions, then the High Courts would be flooded with bail applications, which will adversely impact the speedy determination of important legal and constitutional issues arising in other matters pending before the High Courts. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the normal course, the High Court should not entertain bail applications directly without asking the applicant to approach the court of first instance. It is only in desirable and appropriate cases where the High Court should exercise its discretion to entertain the bail application directly. 15 Coming to the facts of present case, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with offences which are not of such serious nature and which do not involve circumstances as would make it risky for the applicant to approach the Court of first instance. In fact, the applicant had approached the learned Principal Sessions Court, Rajouri with a bail application and even a report was called by the said Court from the police. However, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the applicant abandoned his bail application. No reasons have been assigned by the petitioner for 10 abandoning the remedy availed by him before the Court. In fact, in the present bail application, the petitioner has not even made a mention about filing of bail application before Principal Sessions Court, Rajouri. This fact has been conveniently suppressed from this Court.

16 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to entrain the present bail application directly without exhausting the remedy before the court of Sessions. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Court of first instance.