1 2025:CGHC:20003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 616 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dhaniram Aged About 32 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village And Post Kumhari, Police Station Gidhouri Tundra, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gidhouri - Tundra, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Dr. K.K. Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. Nil registered at Police Station Gidhouri-Tundra, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section- Nill. 2. From perusal of the ofÏce report, it appears that the present applicant has directly filed this anticipatory bail application before this Court without approaching the trial Court, which is not maintainable. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The learned State counsel raise a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of anticipatory bail and submits that the present applicant has directly filed this anticipatory bail application before this Court without approaching the trial Court, which is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5. While dealing with maintainability of the application filed under Section 438 of CrPC directly before the High Court, this Court in the case of Hare Ram Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 639 has held as under : “16. Thus, the catena of judgments referred to above would follow the common thread that albeit Section 438 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. For filing an application directly before the High Court the applicant has to demonstrate and satisfy the High Court that there exists exceptional, rare or unusual reasons for the applicant to approach the High Court directly. 17. Merely for the reason that the accused has a good case on merits cannot be a ground for moving the bail application directly before the High Court for the reason that if the accused has a good case on merits and there is no material available with the police to implicate the accused, there is no reason why the learned Sessions Judge would not be in a position to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and apply his judicial mind.” 3 6. On a pointed query being made to the counsel for the applicant as to why the applicant has not approached the trial Court concerned firstly and filed the same before this Court, he could not give a plausible reply in this regard and only states that the applicant if approaches the trial Court for anticipatory bail, there is threat to his life but only such a bald statement without any cogent material to show such apprehension cannot be a ground to approach this Court directly for anticipatory bail is wholly misconceived. 7. Considering the fact that the the explanation given by the counsel for the applicant is not acceptable, he cannot be allowed to approach directly before this Court without approaching the trial Court, thus, in the light of law laid down by this Court in Hare Ram Sharma (supra), the instant bail application is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the applicant is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the appropriate forum, if he so wishes. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal