1973 P Cr (PLP)

S.498

Anticipatory bail

Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court

Ordinarily Court of inferior jurisdiction should be moved first

Although High Court in special circumstances may exercise jurisdiction despite fact that lower Court not moved in first instance, yet circumstance mist be such as to justify departure from ordinary rule

persons seeking bail residing. And alleged offence committed, within jurisdiction of Sessions Court

No allegation of non-confidence in Sessions Curt

Application for bail, in circumstance, dismissed by High Court and applicants directed to move Session Court in first instance. Mohsin Raza Razvi for Petitioners. This is an application for bail in anticipation of arrest which bas been filed in this Court with out moving the Sessions Judge at Hyderabad in which district the crime is alleged to have taken place.

2. The very first question that arises is whether this Court should entertain this application where the Sessions Court admit tedly hits not been moved. That the Court of Session and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction is admitted. Clearly undoubted is the power of this Court to exercise this jurisdiction before the Sessions Judge has been moved. But it is a principle too well established to need either argument or authority that where there is concurrent jurisdiction tit two or more Courts, ordinarily the Court of inferior jurisdiction must first be moved. There may of course is special circumstances where in a given case the higher Court may exercise jurisdiction. I am not attempting either to deny the proposition or to lay down any list of circumstances in which alone this Court will exercise jurisdiction. The sole question before me, in this case, is whether there are any circumstances which justify a departure from the ordinary rule.

3. Admittedly the crime is alleged to have taken place in Tando Allahyar, a part of the District of Hyderabad. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were at that time in Karachi of that they are ordinarily resident in Karachi or in any other district outside Hyderabad. Equally admittedly they have had to come from their native place to Karachi to move this applica tion and Hyderabad is on the route there from. All that is suggested is that they are persons of local importance and that their arrest in Hyderabad (in the event of being refused bail) would cause them incalculable harm. It is certainly not suggested that there is any lack of confidence in the Sessions Court, at Hyderabad; In these circumstances, I can see no special reason why this Court should be moved first or that this Court should agree to exercising this jurisdiction before the Sessions Court has been moved.

4. I have not commented capon the merits of the application because obviously in view of what I have said above the applicants will or at least may move the Sessions .Judge and I have no desire to prejudice the, case before that Court. In fairness to learned counsel I must add that having argued this particular point he has himself refrained from arguing any other part of the matter.

5. In the event therefore, this application is dismissed. Petition dismissed.