Se437 CrPc says appears before Court other than HC & SC

The sessions court is not empowered to take cognizance directly. It comes in to picture only after committal of case by the magistrate or after rejection of bail by the magistrate. thus there is no occassion to move to sessions court under s. 437. The application before it will be filed under s. 439 after rejection of bail by the Magistrate u/s 437.

Either you can move aplication before JMFC  under 437 of crpc,  as first application, where accused is produced, then court will pass order that offence is triable by session court, hence this court has no jurisdiction,and then you can  move appplication u/s. 439 of crpc before sessions court as second application, or you can apply directly to sessions court u/s. 439.

Thank you Dr.Tripahi amd Pallavi.

Dear Pllavi, is it competent for the acused to directly approach the Session Court without waiting for the rejection by the Magistrate under 437? I want to confirm your last suggestions.

The wording of sec.437 Preson who is suspected of, commission of non bailable offence is brought or appear b4 the court,other than HC or  Court of session  may realese on bail.Magistrate have power to reales the accused on bail in session case also.

           The wording of  Sec.439 is A person ,who is the accused of an offence and in the custody  be realese on bail. Plain wording of this sec. is any person who is in the custody may  file bail application b4 session court or HC.so there ids no bar to file bail  application.But there  are citations on this point that offences other than triable court session the accused first file bail application & after rejection he can approch to HC or Session  Court.

Dear Sunil, it means that if the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Session, bail has to be moved straight away before the Session Court under 439 CrPc right?

 an offence u/s 302 or 376 IPC is exclusively triable bya court of sessions . can aJMFC deal bail application u/s 167 Cr.P.C. in these cases?

during police investigation the only section to seek bail is sec-167 Cr.P.C. whether the case is exclusively triable by the `court of sessions or not. the sec-437 applies during trial stage and the sec-439 comes into play whn there is rejection u/s 167 or 437.

it depends on the nature of the offence, for example 

in Lokayuktha (corruption) cases the accused  will be produced directly b4 the sessions court, in that situation the accused has to approach the sessions court

           and

same procedure in attrocity cases

My opinion given above, is based on a decision . I will post the citation after cheking my digest.

However, similar question arises regarding order for investigation u/s 156 (3)  which says: "Any Magistrate empowered u/s 190 may order such an investigation ......". On this point a single judge of Allahabad High Court in criminal revision no 507/2007 decided on 21/11/2008, has held that:

"As would appear from sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C., only that Magistrate can pass the order for investigation, who is empowered under section 190 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence. In view of section 7 of the Act, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any scheduled offence and only the special court constituted under this Act can take cognizance of any scheduled offence. Therefore, the learned lower Revisional Court is perfectly right in holding that the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur had no jurisdiction to pass the order for investigation on the application moved by the applicant Rajjan Prasad under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
15.This court has held in the case of Mahendrapal Jha Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma and others 2001 (42) ACC 125 that if the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, then, order for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can not be passed by him and if he has passed order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the said order would be without jurisdiction. Although the matter of territorial jurisdiction was involved in that case, but on the basis of the principles of law laid down therein, it can very well be said that Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur could not pass order for registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police on the application moved by the applicant Rajjan Prasad under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the allegations made therein prima facie discloses the commission of scheduled offence under U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act and hence, only the Special Court, Hamirpur, which is empowered to take cognizance of the scheduled offence under this Act by virtue of section 7, could pass order for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on that application.
16.The matter of passing the order by the Special Judge under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act on the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was considered by this Court in the case of Suresh Prakash Tiwari and others Vs. State of U.P. 1994 (suppl.) ACC 121, in which order for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was made by the Special Judge under U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act. The order for investigation passed by the Special Judge was upheld by this Court."