https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295130 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. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 May 2021 08:28:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295130 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295130