ORDER
A.K. Saxena, J.
1. Heard.
2. Perused the order impugned.
3. It appears that an application for transitory anticipatory bail application has been filed before the Sessions Court and the First Additional Sessions Judge Balaghat after referring two cases, i.e., Sachindra Mahawar and Ors. v. State and Anr. Cr.C.P. (M.P.) 89 : 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 127 and Kailashpati Kedia v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1996 Cr.LR (MP) 107 : 1996 MPLJ 847 and found that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction in such type of matters and only the High Court has jurisdiction and because of that he rejected the application. I considered both the cases and found that it is nowhere decided in these cases, that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to grant transitory anticipatory bail in whose jurisdiction, the person apprehends his arrest and his case has been registered in another State. In the case of Kailashpati Kedia (supra), the point referred to Larger Bench was that whether any person, residing in local jurisdiction of this Court and having reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, outside, the local jurisdiction of this Court, can apply to this Court under Section 438 of Cr.PC for his release, in the event of arrest.
4. It is apparent from referred question that this point as to whether the Sessions Court has jurisdiction in such matters, was not asked for and because of that this question was not decided in this case. Since, concurrent jurisdiction has been granted to Sessions Court as well as to the High Court under Section 438 of Cr.PC, therefore, the principle laid down in this case does not effect the jurisdiction of Sessions Court.
5. In the case of Sachindra Mahawar (supra), it is nowhere decided that only the High Court has jurisdiction in such type of matters and the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction. It appears that the Sessions Court rejected the bail application of the applicant after perusal of head note, which was not proper at all. After perusal of above judgments, I found that the Sessions Court as well as the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction and the Sessions Court is fully empowered to grant transitory anticipatory bail in suitable cases. It has been laid down by the Apex Court that if two Courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the Lower Court should be approached firstly. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicants are at liberty to file another application for transitory anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and it is directed that the Sessions Court shall decide the application on merits.
With these directions, the application is disposed of.