New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court has observed that applicants have the discretion to choose between the High Court and the trial court while filing anticipatory bail petitions and this choice cannot be curtailed by a narrow interpretation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Is. Justice Chandradhari Singh made the remarks while hearing a plea by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2021.
The ED has registered the case under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Singh said that there is no bar on directly approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized that the decision to approach the High Court or the Sessions Court rests with the applicant, as both the courts have the same jurisdiction.
Both the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to try such cases.
He insisted that this discretion should not be restricted by a narrow interpretation of Section 438 of the CrPC.
Stating that personal liberty should not depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions.
The judge said that persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the provision should be interpreted in a manner that upholds this principle.
Justice Singh emphasized the importance of retaining the beneficial nature of Section 438 and clarified that the court’s observations have been made in the context that the power to grant anticipatory bail is considered extraordinary and should be granted only in specific cases.
Therefore, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain bail applications under section 438 even if the applicant had not previously approached the Court of Session.
–IANS
