I.A. Ansari, J.

Can a High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, direct that an application, seeking pre-arrest bail or anticipatory bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Code”), shall be filed in the office of the Sessions Judge of the Sessions Division, who would appropriately distribute such applications amongst the senior Additional Sessions Judges including those posted in Sub-Divisional Courts? This question, takes us to another question and the question is: What is the distinction between a Sessions Judge, on the one hand, and the Court of Session on the other? This question takes us to yet another question and the question is: How a Sessions Judge is different from an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge?

2. The questions, posed above, have been thrown up by the present applications made, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the form of public interest litigation, by the District Bar Association, Patna, and the Patna City Bar Association, Patna, putting to challenge the Circular issued, in this regard, by the High Court, on 21.09.2015, and, the consequential order, dated 23.09.2015, published by the Sessions Judge, Patna.

3. We have heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No.251 of 2016, and Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No.3429 of 2016. We have also heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No.6, and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Registry of the High Court.

4. Before I enter into the merit of the present public interest litigations, we must point out that though a number of Circulars, issued by this Court, were put to challenge in the present writ petitions, Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing, for petitioner of CWJC No.251 of 2016, and Mr. D.K. Sinha, appearing, learned counsel for the petitioner of CWJC No.3429 of 2016, have made it clear that petitioners keep their challenge confined only to the Circular, dated 21.09.2015 (Annexure-3) issued by the Registrar General, Patna High Court, addressed to all the District & Sessions Judge of the State of Bihar, and the order, dated 23.09.2015, (Annexure-5), issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Patna.

5. Considering the nature of challenge, which these public interest litigations pose, the Circular, dated 21.09.2015, is reproduced below in extenso:

“Letter No.54260-54296/Rules Deptt. Dated, Patna, 21st September, 2015

To,

All the District and Sessions Judge of the State of Bihar

Subject: Distribution of anticipatory bail applications.

Sir,

I am directed to say that the Hon’ble Court by its Resolution dated 15.09.2015 has been pleased to resolve that the General Letter No.01 of 1986 (Criminal) issued by this Court to all the District & Sessions Judges in Bihar, dated 12th February, 1986 be recalled and they be informed that all the anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be filed before the Sessions Judge, who would appropriately distribute anticipatory bail applications, amongst the senior Additional District and Sessions Judges including those posted in Sub-divisional Courts.

I am, therefore, to request you that the above directions should be strictly followed by all concerned.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Registrar General”

6. Closely following the issue of the Circular, dated 21.09.2015, aforementioned, the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, issued the order, dated 23.09.2015, (Annexure-5), which reads thus:

“OFFICE OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, PATNA

(Administrative side)

ORDER No. 127/Dt. 23.09.2015

Perused the direction of the Hon’ble High Court communicated through Letter No.54260-54296 Rules Department dt. 21st September, 2015, in the matter of filing and hearing of Anticipatory Bail Petitions.

The Hon’ble Court has directed that the Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. shall be filed befor