JUDGMENT VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.- In all these bail applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C:), prayer for bail has been made on behalf of applicants Gajraj Singh, Pal Singh and Santosh Tiwari, who are facing trial in district Court Lucknow in S.T. No. 15 of 2009, arising out of case crime No. 299 of 2008, under sections 323, 342,457, 364, 302 and 120-B, IPC and section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Diviyapur, District Auraiya. 2. The deceased Manoj Kumar Gupta was posted as Executive Engineer, P.W.D., in District Auraiya and he was re~ siding in Gail Vihar Colony, Diviyapur, District Auraiya. He was brutally beaten in his residence in the intervening night of 23/24.12.2008. His wife Smt. Shashi Gupta lodged an FIR on 24.12.2008 at 6.20 a.m. at P.5. Diviyapur, where a case under section 323, 342, 457, 364, IPC was registered at crime No, 299 of 2008 against Bhatia, Tyagi and one unknown person. The allegations made in: the FIR (annexure I), in brief, are that when Smt. Shashi Gupta and her husband Manoj Kumar Gupta were present in their residence in Gail Vihar Colony Diviyapur, some persons after breaking the door entered into their residence on 24.12.2008 at about 1.30-2.00 a.m. and caused marpeet with Manoj Kumar Gupta and thereafter, they carried him in the vehicle and bolted the door from outside. It is alleged that when the miscreants were beating Manoj Kumar Gupta, he was requesting them to leave him calling their names Bhatia and Tyagi. Further case of prosecution is that Sri Shekhar Tiwari, sitting MLA of BSP along with Puti, Vinay Tiwari and Manoj Awasthi brought a person in serious condition at P.S. Diviyapur in their private vehicle and after leaving him there, they went away. Entry regarding this fact was made in GD at 3.05 a.m. in P.S. Diviyapur and thereafter the injured person was sent to CHC Auraiya, where he succumbed to the injuries. That injured was Manoj Kumar Gupta. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused persons in the Court of CJM Diviyapur and on the case being committed to the Court of Session for trial S.T. No. 15 of 2009 was registered. 3. That injured was Manoj Kumar Gupta. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused persons in the Court of CJM Diviyapur and on the case being committed to the Court of Session for trial S.T. No. 15 of 2009 was registered. 3. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to mention that the accused Smt. Vibha Tiwari, wife of co-accused Shekhar Tiwari (MLA) and other accused filed transfer application in High Court, which was registered as Cri. Misc. Transfer Application No. 173 of 2009. That application was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 11th May 2009, whereby S.T. No. 15 of 2009 State v. Shekhar Tiwari and others was transferred from the Court of Sessions Judge Auraiya to the Court• of Sessions Judge Lucknow and now the trial of the accused persons including the applicants is pending in district Court Lucknow. 4. Argument in these bail applications were heard on merit on' 3.8.2009 and order was reserved. During the course of arguments it was brought to my notice that trial of the accused persons including the applicants is going on in Sessions Court Lucknow. Therefore, I vide my order dated 6.8.2009 posed a question regarding maintainability of the bail applications in the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad, I have heard arguments of Sri J.S. Sengar, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, Sri S.G. Hasnain, Additional Advocate General as well as AGA Sri J.P. Singh on the point of maintainability of bail applications in the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad. 5. On the point of maintainability of the bail applications in the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad, it was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the applicants that when notice of the bail applications was given to the Government Advocate, High Court Allahabad, the trial of the applicants was pending in District Court, Auraiya, which is situated under the jurisdiction of principal seat of High Court at Allahabad and hence, the bail applications are legally maintainable in this Court. In this context, my attention was drawn towards sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 of Allahabad (High Court Rules and it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that giving of notice to the Government Advocate is a condition precedent for filing bail application in the High Court and since the notice was given by the applicants prior to the transfer of Session Trial from Sessions Court Auraiya, hence there was no legal bar for the applicants to file bail applications in the principal seat of High Court of Allahabad. 6. Next submission regarding maintainability of the bail applications made by learned counsel for the applicants was that the order refusing bail applications of the applicants in case crime No. 299 of 2008 of P.S. Diviyapur, District Auraiya was passed by Sessions Judge, Auraiya, and hence on this ground also, the bail applications are maintainable in this Court, notwithstanding that the trial of the accused persons has been transferred subsequently to Lucknow. The contention of Sri J's. Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants was that in view of Rule 18 (1) of Chapter-18 of Allahabad High Court Rules, filing of certified copy of the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application of the accused is a condition precedent for moving the bail application in High Court and hence, on this ground, the bail applications moved on behalf of the applicants are legally maintainable in the principal seat of High Court Allahabad. 7. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that assuming for the sake of argument that bail applications in the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad are not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, even then this Court can decide the bail applications on merit with a view to do the justice and by deciding the bail applications by this Court, no prejudice would be caused to the State of U.P. 8. It was further submitted by Sri Sengar that trial of the accused persons has only been transferred by this Court to Lucknow and hence, there is no legal bar to initiate other proceedings arising out of case Crime No. 299 of 2008 of P.S. Diviyapur (Auraiya) in the principal seat to the High Court at Allahabad and since the bail applications are also proceeding under Cr.P.C., hence on this ground also, the bail applications are legally maintainable in this Court. 9. 9. Drawing my attention towards the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J., on the bail application of co-accused Smt. Vibha Tiwari in Cri. Mise. Bail Application No. 9756 of 2009, it was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the bail application of co-accused in case Crime No. 299 of 2008 has been entertained and decided by another Bench of this Court after transfer of Session Trial from Auraiya District Court and hence, the bail applications of the applicants also should be decided on merit by this Bench. 10. In reply to, aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants, it was submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that all the three bail applications have been filed in this Court after transfer of S.T. No. 15 of 2009 from Session Court Auraiya to Session Court Lucknow and since no case was pending at that time against the applicants in Auraiya session court, hence the bail applications are not legally maintainable in principal seat to High Court at Allahabad because the Session Court Lucknow is situated under the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of High Court at Allahabad by virtue of D.P. High Courts (Amalgamation Order), 1848. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General was that after transfer of Session Trial No. 15 of 2009 from the session Court Auraiya to the Session Court Lucknow, vide order dated 11th May 2009, passed by the High Court, in Cri. Misc. Transfer Application No. 173 of 2009 (Smt. Vibha Tiwari and others v. State of U.P, and another), the bail applications and other proceedings arising out of case Crime No. 299 of 2008 of P.S. Diviyapur (Auraiya) can be filed in Lucknow Bench of High Court and principal seat of High Court has no jurisdiction now to entertain and decide any proceeding arising out of aforesaid case crime number concerning the applicants. 11. 11. Regarding the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by another Bench of this Court on the bail application of the co-accused Smt. Vibha Tiwari, it was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the bail application of Smt. Vibha Tiwari was moved in the High Court prior to the transfer of S.T. No. 15 of 2 J09 and hence, the order passed by another Bench of this Court on that bail application is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of bail applications of the applicants, as these bail applications were moved in the High Court after transfer of Session Trial from the SessioI1 Court Auraiya to the Session Court Lucknow. 12. It was also submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that if any Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide any proceeding, then in the garb of doing justice between the parties, the Court cannot assume jurisdiction to decide the matter which is not legally maintainable in that Court. 13. I have carefully- considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties. The bail application No. 17998 of 2009 on behalf of applicant Gajraj Singh was filed in this Court on 10th July 2009 and the bail applications No. 18489 of 2009 and 18492 of 2009 were filed on 15th July 2009 on behalf of applicants Pal Singh and Santosh Tiwari. Admittedly, S.T. No. 15 of 2009 (State v. Shekhar Tiwari and others) .arising out of case crime No. 299 of 2009 of P.S. Diviyapur was transferred by this Court, vide order dated 11.5.2009 from the Session Court Auraiya to the Session Court Lucknow. The order dated 11.5.2009 passed by this Court has been reported in (Smt. Vibha Tiwari and others v. State of U.P. and another). It is not disputed that the applicants also were facing trial in. aforesaid session trial. After the transfer of S.T. No. 15 of 2009 aforesaid, no case against the applicant arising out of crime No. 299 of 2008 was pending in Auraiya judgeship, which lies within the jurisdiction of principal seat of High Court at Allahabad. By virtue of U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation Order) 1948, Lucknow Bench of High Court at Allahabad has jurisdiction over the Courts at Lucknow. By virtue of U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation Order) 1948, Lucknow Bench of High Court at Allahabad has jurisdiction over the Courts at Lucknow. Since the Session Trial of the applicants was pending in District Court Lucknow prior to moving the bail applications in principal seat of High Court at Allahabad, hence in my considered opinion, all the three bail applications are not legally maintainable in this Court. It is true that notice of all these three bail applications was given to the Government Advocate, High Court Allahabad prior to the transfer of aforesaid Session Trial, but in my opinion, merely on the basis of giving notice to the Government Advocate, the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad cannot assume jurisdiction to entertain and decide the ball applications of the applicants, which were moved in the High Court after transfer of aforesaid Session Trial. The bail application of co-accused Smt. Vibha Tiwari in crime No. 299 of 2008 was pending on the date of passing order on Cri. Misc. Transfer Application No. 173 of 2009 and since that bail application was not transferred,• hence my learned brother Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J. rightly decided the bail application of Smt. Vibha Tiwari on merit. But on the basis of that order the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad cannot assume jurisdiction to decide the bail applications of applicants, which were filed after passing the order dated 11th May, 2009, whereby trial of the applicants and other accused persons was transferred from Auraiya to Lucknow. In my opinion, after transfer of the trial of the applicants and other accused persons from Session Court Auraiya to Session Court Lucknow, no proceeding arising out of ,~ase crime no. 299 of 2008 of P.s. Diviyapur can be entertained and decided by the principal seat of High Court at Allahabad and after transfer order, Lucknow Bench of High Court can only entertain and decide any proceeding arising out of the aforesaid case. In my considered opinion, also on the basis of the order of the Sessions Judge Auraiya rejecting the bail applications of the applicants, the bail applications of the applicants in principal seat of High Court at Allahabad are not legally maintainable, because on the date of filing these bail applications, the case against the applicants was not pending in Session Court Auraiya. The trial of the applicants is, pending in session Court Lucknow. The trial of the applicants is, pending in session Court Lucknow. Therefore, the applicants after giving requisite notice to the Government Advocate Lucknow can file fresh bail applications in Lucknow Bench of High Court, annexing therewith certified copy of order passed by the Sessions Judge Auraiya rejecting the bail applications of the applicants. I entirely agree with the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that in the garb of doing justice, no Court can assume jurisdiction to decide a case which is not legally maintainable in that Court. 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, all the three bail applications are hereby rejected being not maintainable in principal seat of High Court at Allahabad. The applicants are at liberty to file fresh bail applications in Lucknow Bench of High Court after giving requisite notice to the Government Advocate, Lucknow. 15. Let certified copy of the orders passed by the sessions Judge Auraiya, rejecting the bail applications of the applicants in case Crime No. 299 of 200B, be returned by the office to the counsel of applicants after obtaining photo-stat copies thereof, which may be kept on the record of these bail applications. Applications Rejected.