Judgment ( 1. ) APPLICANT has filed this revision against the order dated 13. 06. 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya, rejecting his regular bail application No. 1013/2006, holding it not maintainable. ( 2. ) APPLICANT apprehending arrest in Crime No. 112/2005 registered under Sections 409 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code by Police Station chandia of district Umariya, moved an application under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court which was registered as m. Cr. C. No. 374/2006. By order dated 12. 04. 2006, the aforesaid application was allowed. He was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-and a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. It was, however, directed that the bail order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. During this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law. ( 3. ) WHEN applicant moved the regular bail application before the court of Sessions, learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1978 SC 179 , dismissed the application holding that the said regular bail application was not maintainable under Section 439, Cr. P. C. as the applicant did not first move the Court of magistrate under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that since the High court while granting bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed that the applicant may move an application for regular bail before the competent court which shall be considered by that Court; learned Additional sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing his application holding it not maintainable. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that the applicant was required to move his regular bail application before the Court of Magistrate before filing the same before the Court of Sessions. ( 6. ) IN case of Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed as under : ?section 439 (1), Cr. P. C. of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. ( 6. ) IN case of Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed as under : ?section 439 (1), Cr. P. C. of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike under S. 437 (1) there is no ban imposed under s. 439 (1), Cr. P. C. against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is, however, legitimate to suppose that the High court or the Court of Session will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after the investigation has progressed throwing light on the evidence and circumstances implicating the accused. Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail under S. 439 (1), Cr. P. C. of the new Code. ? ( 7. ) THE decision of the Apex Court while observing about the course of a bail application which is to take generally, it appears to me, did not intend to confer jurisdiction on a Court without jurisdiction under the Statute. Naturally, therefore, the Apex Court made it clear that ?the High Court or the Court of session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail under Section 439 (1), Cr. P. C. of the new Code. ? In the context, the observation that ?it is, however, legitimate to suppose that the High Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate?. . ? appears to be words of caution and warning against the abuse of the provision of the bail, without intending to compel an accused to first necessarily go before a Court (Magistrate) without jurisdiction before approaching one endowed with jurisdiction. ( 8. ) SINCE the Police had registered the case under Sections 409 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was justified in supposing that his bail application under Section 437 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate would be an entirely futile exercise for want of jurisdiction. ( 8. ) SINCE the Police had registered the case under Sections 409 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was justified in supposing that his bail application under Section 437 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate would be an entirely futile exercise for want of jurisdiction. In the present case, while granting bail to the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court observed that the applicant may move an application for regular bail before the competent court, then the learned additional Sessions Judge ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the applicant as not maintainable. Since the offence under Section 409, I. P. C. is punishable with imprisonment for life, prima facie, the Court of Sessions would be the competent Court for the purpose of regular bail application. ( 9. ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. Bail application No. 1013/2006 is restored and the learned Additional Sessions judge is directed to hear and dispose of the said bail application on merits according to law.