- 1 - aba783.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 783 OF 2026 Mrs. Shiladevi Sudhir Tiwari .. Applicant versus The State of Maharshtra & others .. Respondents Mr. Diwakar R. Singh along with Mr. A. M. Reddy, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. A. V. Lavate, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10th JULY, 2026. PER COURT : 1. Applicant has filed this application for pre-arrest bail to this court without first approaching to the Sessions Court in connection with Crime No. 0673/2025 registered with Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act. 2. At the outset, learned APP submits that though the application is filed by the Applicant for pre-arrest bail may be maintainable before this Court, since there is a concurrent jurisdiction with the - 2 - aba783.26.odt Sessions Court, the Applicant ought to have approached to the Court of first instance before approaching the High Court directly. To support his submission, he placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ankit Bharti vs State of UP and another, AIROnline 2020 All 694 and Manjeet Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 Supreme(SC) 1691. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jagdeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 965, relevant observations of which read thus :- “6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagrik 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 High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering 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. - 3 - aba783.26.odt Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.” 3. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that there is jurisdiction vested in this Court as well as Trial Court for entertaining pre-arrest bail and hence, there is no impediment in entertaining the present application before this Court. He placed reliance on order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, in Criminal Appeal No. 515/2021 and referred to the observations made therein which read thus :- “The jurisdiction of the Trial Court as well as the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concurrent and merely because the High Court was approached by the appellant without approaching the Trial Court would not mean that the High court could not have considered the bail application of the appellant. As such, in our view, the High Court ought to have considered the bail application of the appellant on merits and decided the same. However, since the High Court has not considered the matter on merits and much water has flown since the passing of the order of the High Court, as now there are two medical reports of the appellant, one by the government hospital on the - 4 - aba783.26.odt direction of the High Court and the other by the Army Hospital on the directions of this Court, we deem it fit and proper to consider the bail application of the appellant on merits.” 4. He also placed reliance on judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mohanlal vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 ALLMR (Cri) 3138 to support that the application directly filed before the High court for grant of pre-arrest bail without approaching to the Sessions Court is maintainable. Reference is also made to the judgment in case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/5042/2022. 5. There cannot be dispute made with regard to the position of law that this Court as well as Sessions Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of pre-arrest bail. The law on the point of the Court which is supposed to be approached first in case of concurrent jurisdiction however, is settled well to say that in case of such concurrent jurisdiction of two Courts the Court of the lowest rank must be approached first. The judicial propriety and practice followed for long period of time requires a party to exhaust lowest forum, with exception that in case of extreme urgency or special - 5 - aba783.26.odt circumstances the Court of higher forum could be approached directly. So, as far as approaching the High Court for pre-arrest bail without referring application before the Sessions Court, there must exist special or extra ordinary circumstances. 6. Here in this case, First Information Report is lodged on 07.07.2025. Even if the contention of the Applicant is accepted that a raid was conducted on premises of the Applicant in December 2025, still there is no emergent situation exists since the present application has been filed after 5 months thereof i.e. on 11.05.2026. Thus, there is no special or extra ordinary circumstances in order to bypass remedy of preferring pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court and to approach this Court directly for seeking pre-arest bail. Permitting such applications without justification, would lead to making the remedy available of anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions and would flood this Court with such applications, which is neither contemplated by law nor is advisable too. 7. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there exists any special circumstance in order to entertain the application for pre- arrest bail directly. Hence, application stands dismissed. Needless to - 6 - aba783.26.odt say that it is open for the Applicant to move the concerned Sessions Court for seeking appropriate relief, if she so desires. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb