(1.) THIS case arises out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 253 of 2006 giving rise to Special Case No. 16 of 2006.
(2.) THIS matter has come under the heading "for orders" as the office of this Court has held that the Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not directly maintainable in the High Court.
(3.) PANKAJ Kumar Sinha alongwith Diwakar Sinha and Kamal Kishore Jha counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on a accusation of having committed a non - bailable offence, may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under Section 438. of the Code of Criminal Procedure". There can be no doubt about the interpretation of Section 438. of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it confers concurrent jurisdiction to both the High Court and Sessions Judge to consider an application for grant of anticipatory bail. In 1985, this question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Meena Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 596. This Court after considering the scope and ambit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed that the discretion of the Court to grant anticipatory bail if an application is moved directly to it would depend upon the facts of the case. The Court cannot refuse to entertain the anticipatory bail application on the ground that it has been moved directly to the High Court. In fact at paragraph 16 of the judgment is the conclusion which was drawn by this Court while considering the above matter which I am quoting below. I, thus, conclude that ''