Concurrent jurisdiction in anticipatory bail allows direct High Court access where special reasons justify bypassing the Sessions Court.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Sessions, so a direct petition before the High Court is not barred in law. However, the ordinary practice is to approach the Sessions Court first, and a direct approach requires special reasons. On the facts, the allegations against the petitioners were secondary, the principal accused had already obtained bail, and direct recourse to the High Court was justified to avoid delay and additional burden. The Court therefore exercised its discretion to entertain the petition directly and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition 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; (ii) whether the petitioners made out special reasons for the High Court to entertain the petition directly and grant anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether a petition 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.

Analysis: The provision confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Sessions. It contains no statutory embargo requiring prior exhaustion of the Sessions Court remedy. At the same time, the Court noted the consistent view of the jurisdictional precedent that, as a matter of judicial practice and discretion, the Sessions Court should ordinarily be approached first, though the High Court may still entertain the petition for special reasons.

Conclusion: The petition is not barred in law before the High Court, but direct approach requires justification in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners made out special reasons for the High Court to entertain the petition directly and grant anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioners were limited and secondary in nature, while the principal accused had already been granted bail. The Court accepted the petitioners' direct approach on the footing that relegating them to the Sessions Court would cause avoidable delay and financial burden, and treated these circumstances as sufficient special reasons to exercise jurisdiction. On merits, the Court found no strong reason to deny anticipatory bail and considered the petitioners fit to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

Conclusion: Special reasons existed for direct entertainment of the petition, and anticipatory bail was granted.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the general practice of approaching the Sessions Court first under Section 438, but held that special reasons can justify direct recourse to the High Court, and on the facts granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Though jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is concurrent, the High Court may ordinarily expect prior recourse to the Court of Sessions as a matter of discretion, while retaining power to entertain a direct petition where special reasons are shown.

---