Anticipatory bail practice requires first approaching the Sessions Court, unless special reasons justify direct High Court access.

Section 438 CrPC confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail, and it does not create an express statutory bar requiring prior approach to the Sessions Court. Even so, the discretionary nature of the remedy and the practical advantages of first approaching the Sessions Court make that the normal course. Direct invocation of the High Court is justified only by special or extraordinary reasons. On that basis, an anticipatory bail application was treated as not maintainable before the High Court where the Sessions Court remedy had not been exhausted, absent such reasons.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Sessions, and whether direct invocation of the High Court requires special or exceptional reasons.

Analysis: Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Sessions to consider anticipatory bail. The provision does not expressly impose a statutory bar requiring prior recourse to the Sessions Court. However, the discretionary nature of the relief, the superior-subordinate court structure, and the practical advantages of first approaching the Sessions Court were treated as relevant considerations. On that basis, the normal course was held to be prior approach to the Sessions Court, while direct approach to the High Court could be justified only by special or extraordinary reasons.

Conclusion: The application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held not maintainable before the High Court in the absence of exhaustion of the Sessions Court remedy, save in cases showing special or extraordinary reasons.

---