IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2923 of 2025 Date of Decision : 12.12.2025 Manohar Lal & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 115 of 2025, dated 01.10.2025, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(i)(g) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 (Amendment 2015) (in short “SC & ST Act”). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. It appears from the record that the petitioners did not approach the learned Trial Court and instead approached this Court directly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of approaching the High Court directly by passing judgment in Mohammed Rasal C. vs. State of Kerala and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6588 of 2025, decided on 08.09.2025, holding that parties should not be encouraged to approach the High Court without first approaching the Court of Sessions. It was observed: - “We find that in this case, the petitioners had approached the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short, ‘BNSS’), without first approaching the Sessions Court for the said relief. We are of the opinion that though the concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain a prayer for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC), the hierarchy of Courts demands that no person seeking such remedy should be encouraged or allowed to directly approach the High Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 CrPC) by bypassing the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court. 7. The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrPC in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court, which would have direct and first- hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have immediate access to the Case Diary, thereby facilitating a better appreciation of the facts of the case. 8. We further feel that if the practice of entertaining the applications for pre-arrest bail directly in the High Court is encouraged, and the parties concerned are not relegated to first approach the Sessions Court concerned, the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications, thereby creating a chaotic situation. We say so because if the 3 parties are required to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking a remedy of pre-arrest bail, there is a strong probability that a significant number of applications would be allowed at that level only, thereby acting as a filtration process before the process reaches the High Court. 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail, and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre- arrest bail directly in special/extraordinary circumstances.” 4. This position was reiterated in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108, wherein it was observed: “6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste with which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that the High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly intervening itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.” 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition to approach the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to 4 approach the learned Trial Court to seek appropriate relief, without being influenced by the filing of the petition before this Court and its subsequent withdrawal by the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th December, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)