SHILADEVI SUDHIR TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                   -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