- (1.) M. L. Singhal, J. Heard Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the ap plicant. Shri Grridhar Nath, learned coun sel for the C. B. I. and the learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) ON 9/10 Feburary, 1997 at 12 night the murder of one Brahma Dull Dwivedi, Ex Minister, U. P. Cabinet was committed First Information Report about the occur rence was lodged at Police Station Kot wali, Farrukhabad. Earlier, the investiga tion was conducted by local police, sub sequently, the matter was handed over to C. B. I, for investigation. After investiga tion the C. B. I, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused-applicant. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the C. B. I, as to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the bail application. The learned counsel urged that the case has been investigated by C. B. I, at Lucknow and as such the Luck-now Bench of this Court has jurisdiction to entertain bail application. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14207 of 1997, Dr. Balram Datt Sharma v. State of U. P, connected with Criminal Misc. Bail Ap plication Nos. 9820 of 1998, Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma v. State, 15934 of 1998, Dr. Raj Narain Singh v. State of U. P, 813 of 1998, Satya Pal Sharma v. State, 15898 of 1998, Dr. Ram Prakash Misra v. State, 10421 of 1998, Shiv Prakash Srivastava v. State, 3170 of 1999, Dr. Jagdish Sharma Parashan v. State and 10419 of 1998, Padma Datt Daundiyal and others v. State, decided on 9th April, 1999. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Balram Datt Sharma v. State of U. P. (supra) the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasruddin v. 5. T. A. Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 381 would be the guideline to detamine the question of jurisdiction in the matter. In the case of Nasiruddin v. S. T. A. Tribunal (supra) (vide paras 37), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the cause of action in a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, that will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Dr. Balram Dan Sharma held as under : "the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin would, in our view, be a guide-line to determine the question of jurisdic tion in the instant applications. The decision was given in respect of a writ petition and it was clearly indicated that if the cause of action for the grievance of the petitioner arose within the jurisdiction or even partly within it, the Lucknow Bench would have a jurisdiction over the matter. We, therefore, are really to see what is the cause of action for the present bail applica tions. The very initiation of an FIR may not be deemed to be a cause of action for a bail applica tion, at least in Uttar Pradesh where the provisions of anticipatory bail have been deleted from the Cr. P. C. Looking to the provisions in Chapter 33 of the Cr. P. C. concerning bail, it is found that in Section 436 bail is spoken of an arrest or detention of a person. In Section 437 also bail is spoken of when a person accused or suspected of a commission of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained Section 438, as stated above, speaks of anticipatory bail and this provision has been deleted so far Uttar Pradesh is concerned. The power of the High Court to grant bail is covered by Section 439 and the language is as follows: "439. Special powers of High Court of Court of Session regarding bail.- (1) A High Court to Court to Session may direct- (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section. (2) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that".
(3.) IT appears that the High Court could grant bail to a person who is accused of an offence and is in custody. Thus, the cause of action for bail might be differen tiated from a cause of action for writ peti tion and cause of action for a bail may not arise on the lodging of an FIR unless a particular person is arrested or detained in custody. The materials on record indicated that although FIRs are therein different districts touching the present applicants the basic of the parent FIR is the one lodged by the CBI where only the inves tigation was taken up and there nothing on record to show that investigation was made separately in the different FIRs in the districts. They were detained admitted ly in relation to the CBI FIR as is clear from the averments made in each in dividual bail applications. Thus, the cause of action for every applicant could be or is when he was detained in connection with the investigation/charge-sheet in the CBI FIR that lodged at Lucknow. Seen in this light, the cause of action is only within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. We are of the view that in this case the Judges at the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court may not exercise jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Amalgamation Order and the explanation thereof by the Supreme Court in Nasruddin 's case. The facts of the instant case are different from the facts of the case before the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma v. State (Supra ). In the case before the Division Bench, the case was registered with the C. B. I, at Lucknow, the FIR was lodged at Lucknow and after investigation, the charge- sheet was sub mitted. In the said case, the conspiracy germinated at Lucknow by making a forged allotment order and that had gone to different officers in different districts and consequential acts of cheating and misappropriation were committed. In the present case, the offence was committed in district Farrukhabad, the FIR was lodged with Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, the mere registration of FIR by the CBI at Lucknow after the transfer of the case would not make it as the FIR lodged at police station Kotwah Farukhabad lodged in first of time would be treated as first FIR registered in the case. The district Farruk habad lies in the jurisdiction of this Court and as such the Court at Allahabad has jurisdiction to entertain the present bail application.;