Soni Shrivastava, J. – Heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. Seven petitioners have approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS 2023 on the ground that they apprehend arrest in connection with Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 215 of 2024 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 338, 339, 340(2), 344, 61(2), 308(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. The striking feature of the present application is that it has been preferred directly before the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail, to which, a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the same by the learned APP for the State and also the learned counsel appearing for the informant. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court would first take into consideration the judicial pronouncements referred to on behalf of the petitioners in order to buttress their submission that since the Session Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C./482 of B.N.S.S., the petitioners have a right to choose their forum and hence, the present application is not only maintainable but even fit to be allowed.

4. The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the informant have, however, opposed the said prayer on the ground that the petitioners have approached the High Court directly for grant of anticipatory bail without exhausting the remedy before the court of the Session’s Judge, the forum which was available to them for seeking the said remedy.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon several judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs. CBI reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5735 [: 2018 (1) BLJ 63 (SC)] wherein no fault was found in the applicants approaching the High Court directly for grant of Anticipatory/interim bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., that too when the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction and hence, the appeal against grant of protection by way of interim bail till the presentation of challan by the C.B.I., has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6. Learned senior counsel has next relied upon the order dated 9th June 2023 rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in bail application No. 2031 of 2023 CRL. M.A. 16390-16391/2023 wherein a number of judgements have been referred and discussed and the interim protection was granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice as well as considering the entirety of the matter for a limited purpose without being prejudiced by the final outcome in any manner. The Court had taken a view as stated in paragraph 45 & 46 thereof, that the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C even when the applicant has not approached the Court of sessions first. It was considered that Section 438 (1) of Cr.P.C gives concurrent jurisdiction to both the courts in entertaining an anticipatory bail application and there is no bar on approaching the High Court directly under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of anticipatory bail. It was held that Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is a procedural provision that is considered with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail.

7. Further reliance has been placed on the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Mubarik & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors (Criminal writ Petition No. 2059 of 2018). In this case the concerned High Court, considering paragraph 15 of the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs. C.B.I. & Ors. reported in (2018) 12 SCC 119 [: 2018 (1) BLJ 63 (