1. This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner, accused No.15, on bail in Crime No.151 of 2017 on the file of the Bheemunipatnam Bhimili Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120(B) read with 34 IPC, Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, 2000-2008 and Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused material placed on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the son of A-3, Klidindi Rama Devi, and brother-in-law of A-8, Namburi Narayana Raju, and he was an active member in the conspiracy, on the direction of A-8. In pursuance of the conspiracy between the revenue officials and A-8, his family and henchmen A-15 made an application under 6(a) for obtaining Pattadar pass books and title deed, in respect of lands, to an extent of Acs.18.00 cents in Chippada village. All these lands come under the category of surplus lands and belong to Government of A.P.

4. A-8 and A-15 influenced the legal heirs of erstwhile Vijayanagaram estate and obtained no objection affidavits, based on which A-1 and A-2 issued Pattadar pass books and title deeds, to an extent of Acs.07.92 cents in Survey No.159/3 and an extent of Ac.0.94 cents in Survey No.163/1C of Chippada village, in favour of the petitioner. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner, in connivance with A-8, A-1, A-2 and other henchmen, committed land grabbing offences and obtained pattadar pass books.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the name of the petitioner was not shown as accused and it is only based on the confession of the co-accused that his name came to light. He further submits that the survey numbers in respect of which alleged offence is said to have been committed, do not pertain to this petitioner at all.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor raises a preliminary objection, with regard to the entertainment of this bail application, on the ground that this petition is filed directly before this Court, without approaching the lower Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in answer to the said contention placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2014, dated 27.03.2014, between SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER wherein the Apex Court held that Section 439 does not specify that the accused has to first approach the Magistrate Court and seek bail and that the accused can directly approach High Court and Sessions Court for regular bail. The only precondition being, that the person seeking bail should be in custody.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in GURCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 118) in support of his contention that the accused has to first approach the Magistrate Court for seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. But a reading of the said judgment shows that it was observed therein, at paragraph 27, that ordinarily the High Court will not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of an accused. Hence, it can be understood that approaching the Magistrate Court is not a hard and fast rule and that it is only a practice, generally, being followed. Another ruling relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor reported in KWMTAGWRA BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM (2015) 3 GAUHATI LAW REPORTS 453) wherein also it was observed that normally an accused, should file an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and thereafter approach the High Court.

9. The ruling relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, which is reported in K.GAJENDRA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF AP., (1991(2) Andhra Pradesh Law Journal) is with regard to maintainability of se