Hon'ble Jayashree Tiwari, J.:- Case called out in the revised list. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present bail application has been filed for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 1995, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 333, 307, 302 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Colonelganj/C.B.I, District Allahabad. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised in connection with the hearing of this bail application that the High Court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to hear this bail application. It is further con­tended that order under challenge has been passed by the CBI Court Lucknow which is subordinate Court to the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and this Court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to hear the bail application. 3. In this connection, it is contended by learned counsel for the accused appli­cant that Allahabab High Court being the main and permanent seat of the High Court and also the fact that initial cause of action have arisen at Allahabad, al­though, the matter has been investigated by CBI Court Lucknow and the order of rejection has been passed by CBI Court Lucknow, hence Allahabad High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the same. 4. In this connection, learned coun­sel for the applicant referred a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is reported in AIR 1976 SC 331 , 1975(2) SCC 671 in Civil Appeal No. 1940,1941:1972:1972-Criminal:254:1974 in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate, in the aforesaid rul­ing the question of jurisdiction on the civil matter was under consideration before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while dealing with the aforesaid matter has summed the matter in paras-37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the aforesaid case which are as follows: Para 37-" First there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accor­dance with the provisions of the order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or de­crease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to di­rect in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to di­rect in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpre­tation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh ar­eas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad instead of Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice is wrong. The word "heard" means that cases which have already been insti­tuted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second provision to paragraph 14 of the order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action aris­ing wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh, then Allahabad will have juris­diction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises out­side the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case ap­propriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, 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. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding ju­risdiction, it may arise in either place." Para-38 - Applications under Ar­ticle 226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow or at Allahbad as the appli­cant will allege that the whole of cause of action or part of the cause of action arose at Lucknow within the specified areas of Oudh or part of the cause of action arose at a place outside the specified Oudh areas. Para-39- The answers given by the High Court to the first three questions are correct save as modified by our conclusions aforesaid. Para-40- The answer given by the High Court to the fourth question is set aside. The meaning of cases aris­ing in Oudh areas will be found out by appropriate Courts in the light of this judgement. Para-41- The answer to the fifth question is discharged. The matters are sent back to the High Court for dis­posal in accordance with this judge­ment." 5. In this connection, it is worth not­ing that the Apex Court in para-41 of the said judgement, it has held that the an­swer to fifth question is discharged. The matters are sent back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with this judge­ment. So the fifth point has not been de­cided by the Apex Court but has been sent back for disposal in accordance with this judgement. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant mentioned that the offence has been com­mitted in the District Allahabad. Crimi­nal case has arisen at Allahabad as such Allahabad High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the same. Although, the order has been passed by the CBI Court Lucknow, which is Court subordinate to Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It has .also come in the order of the Apex Court in some cases depending on the facts and provisions regarding the jurisdiction which may arise in either place. So according to the Apex Court jurisdic­tion will depend on the fact 1-where offence has been committed, 2-or otherwise pro­vided in the criminal procedure code and on the fact provisions regarding the juris­diction which may arise in either place. 7. In this respect, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the observation made by the Apex Court, it can be entertained by the High Court at Allahabad also. 8. 7. In this respect, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the observation made by the Apex Court, it can be entertained by the High Court at Allahabad also. 8. In this connection, it will be expe­dient to go through the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding juris­diction of the Criminal inquires and trial which lay down as follows: Section 177 Cr.P.C.- "Ordinary place of inquiry or trial-Every offence shall ordinarily be in­quired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was com­mitted." Section 185Cr.P.C. - "Power to order cases to be tried in different sessions divisions.- Notwith­standing anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the State Government may direct that any cases or class or cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division:" Provided that such direction is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by the High Court or the Su­preme Court under the Constitution, or under this Code or any other law for the time being in force." Thus, according to the judgement of the Apex Court that- or otherwise as pro­vided in criminal procedure code there is a power of the State Government to direct cases to be tried in different sessions di­vision and similarly provisions regarding the jurisdiction as directed by the State Government under powers conferred un­der Section 185 Cr.P.C. by the special or­der. Thus, para-41 of the said judge­ment clearly indicates that question of jurisdiction of the criminal cases mentioned at serial No. 5 was not de­termined by the Apex Court but the same was discharged and left and sent back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with this judgement. Thus, it conies out that the obser­vations in pursuance of the provision of section 185 Cr.P.C. giving power to the State Government to make spe­cial provisions for special type of cases and it also comes out that general law as laid down in Section 177 Cr.P.C. i.e. ordinary place of inquiry and trial i.e. every offence shall ordinarily be in­quired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was com­mitted, is excluded by the special pro­vision under Section 185 Cr.P.C. 9. It is apparent that special provisions exclude the application of the general law and special provision vide G.O No. P. 8855/(ii)-A-l 18/196 dated 7.9.1963 and vide G.O. No. P. 1178/II-A-439/1950, dated 6.4.1957 and after by order of the State Government under the provisions conferred under Sec­tion 185 Cr.P.C. as also provided in the judgement referred above. There is a di­rection and provision relating to the CBI cases to be tried by the CBI Court at Lucknow. In that case, the general provi­sion of power to entertain the case by this Allahabad High Court, on the ground that cause of action has arisen within its ju­risdiction, is taken out. 10. In this connection, learned coun­sel for the opposite party has referred some ruling of this Court in Sanjay Somani and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (1) JIG 913 (All), where in a Division Bench of this Allahabad High Court has held that dispute is regarding territorial jurisdiction of appellate and revisional Court. In the aforesaid case, said question was duly considered by Division Bench of this High Court. In this it was held that- "Dispute as to -Offence committed at Kanpur but case of trial by a Court constituted and situated at Lucknow -Dispute is regarding territorial juris­diction of appellate and revisional Court-Whether this determination is to be made by location of Court which passed order or by the place where of-fences was committed-Held: Determination of appellate or revisional Court is to be made on the basis of Court which has jurisdiction to enquiry or trial and not on basis of place of incident" and it was held that it is the location of Court which is de­terminative of fact whether challenge to orders passed by it can be enter­tained by principal seat at Allahabad or the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court." In para-12 of the aforesaid ruling referring to the case of Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate, decided by Hon'ble the Apex Court, it was held that- The Supreme Court was not con­templating a situation where a special Court has been created to try such type of offences which had been investi­gated by the CBI and that single Court has been conferred jurisdiction to try such cases of several districts as is the case here. The observation, "a crimi­nal case arises where the offence has been committed" does not mean hat a criminal case would necessarily be arising in the local area where the of­fence has been committed. When the Court used the words, "or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code", it obviously meant the place where the criminal Court will have ju­risdiction to hold enquiry or trial hav­ing regard to Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Lucknow, has been conferred jurisdic­tion to try the offence in question which was committed in Kanpur on account of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the exercise of power under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the case was investigated by the CBI, the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Lucknow, has exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence. The petitioners are not being prosecuted in any case before a crimi­nal Court at Kanpur. Even though the offence was committed at Kanpur the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Kanpur has been ousted on account of conferment of jurisdiction on the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Lucknow, by issuing notification un­der the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The relief sought by the petitioners in the present peti­tion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the quashing of the order passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Lucknow. Therefore, the abovequoted observation relied upon Sri Giri can­not be interpreted to mean that even in such a fact situation the principal seat at Allahabad will have jurisdic­tion to entertain the petition" It was further held that- "The bail application would be maintainable in the Lucknow Bench and not at Allahabad. In MukhtarAnsari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1992(2) JIC 502 (All); 1999 ALJ 2241, the offence under Sections 364-A and 365-A IPC was committed in Varanasi out the case was investigated by the CBI and the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Special Ju­dicial Magistrate at Lucknow, who committed the case to the Court of Session at Lucknow. The accused filed a criminal revision at Allahabad chal­lenging the order by which his plea of discharge was rejected by the Addi­tional Sessions Judge at Lucknow. The accused filed a criminal revision at Allahabad chal­lenging the order by which his plea of discharge was rejected by the Addi­tional Sessions Judge at Lucknow. It was held that the case arose in an area in Oudh and, consequently, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court will have jurisdiction to hear the revision." Lastly, it was held that- "The language of sub-section (3) of Section 14 is clear and it provides that where the local jurisdiction of a Mag­istrate extends to an area beyond the District in which he ordinarily holds the Court, any reference to the Court of Session shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction be con­strued, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Sessions exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said District". It was also held that - "It is the location of the criminal Court which will be determinative of the fact whether the challenge to the orders passed by it can be entertained by the principal seat at Allahabad or the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the place of commis­sion of offfence is not relevant." 11. In yet another case reported in 2000 Crl LJ 68, Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), Section 177, Section 397 and Sec­tion 14(3)- it has been held by this Court that- "All the criminal Courts located in the 12 districts are inferior to the Lunknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and, therefore, the revision ap­plication against an order passed by an inferior Court located in any one of the 12 districts is entertainable only by the Lucknow Bench. In view of this conspectus, an order passed by Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Lucknow which is obviously a Court inferior to the High Court, is subject to revision by the Lucknow Bench only. In view of the amalgamation order, the High Court at Allahabad shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against the order of the Additional Ses­sions Judge, Lucknow or for that mat­ter of any inferior criminal Court, lo­cated within 12 districts of Oudh." 12. In view of the amalgamation order, the High Court at Allahabad shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against the order of the Additional Ses­sions Judge, Lucknow or for that mat­ter of any inferior criminal Court, lo­cated within 12 districts of Oudh." 12. Now it comes out from the perusal of the aforesaid rulings that the general provision regarding the inquiry or trial under the jurisdiction to the Court where the offence is committed is ousted by the Special provision that the CBI Court at Lucknow will hear and try all cases inves­tigated by CBI of the particular Districts. So order passed by the CBI Court Lucknow which is a Court inferior to Lucknow bench of High Court, the matter concerning, it shall be heard by the Lucknow Bench alone and it is the most acceptable prin­ciple and it is a Court having jurisdiction which is material in determining the ju­risdiction and not the place of occurrence, where crime has been committed because under the powers conferred under Section 185 Cr.P.C., the Government has made special provisions for determination of the CBI of the cases accepting by CBI at Lucknow and Ghaziabad. 13. So the contention of learned coun­sel for the applicant that High Court, Allahabad has jurisdiction to try is not well founded and mis-conceived. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to an order passed by the Single Judge of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in application No. 25210 of 2010' holding that this Court at Allahabad has jurisdiction to exercise the appellate or other powers in respect of the matter which the order has been passed by the CBI Court at Lucknow but the said judge­ment of Single Judge is not inconsonance with the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Somani and others v. State of U.P. and others In these circumstances, I think that from the aforesaid discussion it is appar­ently clear that as under special provisions CBI Court Lucknow has been authorised to try the cases investigated by CBI though all districts which are ordinarily covered under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. This Allahabad High Court is not authorised to hear the matters in which the order has been passed by the CBI Court Lucknow, which is subordinate to the Lucknow Bench of High Court only. This Allahabad High Court is not authorised to hear the matters in which the order has been passed by the CBI Court Lucknow, which is subordinate to the Lucknow Bench of High Court only. The bail application is thus apparently not maintainable at Allahabad, I think that the same be transmitted to the Lucknow Bench for expeditious disposal accordingly and be referred to Hon'ble The Chief Jus­tice for granting the requisite permission. 14. However, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that by clubbing all the CBI's matter in only two Courts of the State, one at Lucknow and one at Ghaziabad, only convenience of the CBI has been taken into consideration but the problems of the litigants belonging to the different and distant districts are ig­nored and not taken into appropriate con­sideration by the State Government while making the aforesaid provisions, which is creating problems for the litigants belong­ing to different districts. 15. The preamble to our Indian Con­stitution says that we people of India, hav­ing solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, demo­cratic, republic and to all its citizen. Jus­tice-social, economic and political, social justice is recognition of greater good to large number without deprivation or actual of legal rights of any body. Social jus­tice is an elastic continuous process to accord justice to all sections and classes of society by providing facilities and oppor­tunities to remove handicaps and disabili­ties with which the majority of people are languishing and to secure dignity of their person in a welfare state. 16. It is worth consideration that read with Article 39A, of the Constitution of India, social justice would include legal justice which means that the system of administration of justice must provide a cheap, expeditious and effective instru­ment for realisation of justice by all sec­tions and classes of the people irrespec­tive of their social or economic position or their financial resources. Actually the doctrine of equally embodied in Article 14 and onwards should be taken into consid­eration in the light of social justice as­sured by Articles 38, 39, 39A, 40, 41 and 46 of the part-IV of the Constitution. 17. Just as juvenile Courts have been established in every district whereas the number of cases related to juveniles are very meagre as compared to CBI cases. 17. Just as juvenile Courts have been established in every district whereas the number of cases related to juveniles are very meagre as compared to CBI cases. Necessity demands the establishment of one CBI Court in each districts or one Court be allotted to try CBI case in each district. 18. Now a days when the cast of life and living and staying is rising to peaks in the districts of Lucknow and Ghaziabad, the litigants of CBI Court Lucknow com­ing from different and distant far off dis­tricts are facing innumerable problems in attending the Courts and defending their cases and it involves huge expenditure beyond their means every time. They have a feeling of deprivation of social justice, as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants, I think it expedient that State Government may be moved to consider the matters afresh with a view to ensure so­cial justice to all class of people to provide either one CBI Court's at each district or at least one CBI Court in each commis­sioners division, so that CBI litigant pu­bic class facing these cases may not be compelled to face undue hardship and ex­penses beyond their means and may not have a feeling of any defeat of the ends of justice on this count, that the Court where they have to place and defend their cases is situated far off and involves huge expenditure every time they go to and re­turn back from the said Court beyond their means. Let a copy of this order be sent to Reg­istrar General for placing it before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for consideration and for moving the Government accordingly.