Concurrent anticipatory bail jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC requires concrete special circumstances for direct High Court access.

Concurrent anticipatory bail jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC may be invoked directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court, but only where special circumstances are concretely established on the facts. The court held that this is not an absolute procedural requirement and that such circumstances must be assessed case by case on a strong factual foundation. The illustrative categories in Vinod Kumar were treated as non-exhaustive and not rigid rules, and the decision did not call for reconsideration or further elaboration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked directly without first approaching the Court of Session, and whether the illustrative special circumstances identified in Vinod Kumar require reconsideration or further elaboration.

Analysis: Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session. The provision does not create an absolute rule that the Sessions Court must invariably be approached first, but the exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction directly is justified only where strong, cogent, compelling and special circumstances are shown on the facts of the case. Those circumstances cannot be exhaustively catalogued, because anticipatory bail depends on judicial discretion and the facts of each case. The decision in Vinod Kumar was held to be consistent with this approach, and the illustrative categories mentioned there were not treated as rigid or exhaustive rules. The application must be supported by concrete facts and a strong factual foundation, not vague or unsubstantiated assertions.

Conclusion: Vinod Kumar did not require reconsideration or further explanation. The existence of special circumstances remains a condition to directly invoke the High Court's jurisdiction, but whether such circumstances exist must be decided case by case by the concerned Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Direct invocation of the High Court's concurrent anticipatory bail jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is permissible only when special circumstances are concretely established on the facts of the case, and such circumstances cannot be reduced to an exhaustive or rigid formula.

---