Anticipatory bail applications under S.438 must typically be filed in the Sessions Court first, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

1. These two bail applications under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') have been filed by the applicants directly before the High Court without availing the remedy before the Sessions Court. On 21 August, 2020 when these two bail applications were listed separately, this Court posted the same for hearing on maintainability.

2. On 16 September, 2020 learned counsel appearing for the applicants placed reliance on an order passed by another Single Bench of this Court in Ratnesh Singh Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh , MCRCA No.918 of 2019 [decided on 23-7-2019] to argue that anticipatory bail applications can be filed directly before the High Court. However, finding that, the Single Bench in Ratnesh Singh Chouhan (supra) has not specifically dealt with the issue as to whether in each and every case, an application under S.438 of the Cr.P.C. filed directly before the High Court would be maintainable or such application can be entertained only in rare or exceptional cases, therefore, to settle the issue the matter was referred to be decided by a larger Bench. Subsequently, these bail applications have been placed before us.

3. Applicant in MCRCA No.234 of 2020 (Hare Ram Sharma) apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No.27/2016 registered by the police of State Economical Offence / Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur (EOW / ACB, Raipur), for offence punishable under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(e) of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') whereas the applicant in MCRCA No.362 of 2020 (T.R. Kunjam) apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No.5/2016 registered by the police of Anti Corruption Bureau, District Raipur, for offence punishable under S.13(1)(e) and S.13(2) of the PC Act.

4. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in MCRCA No.234 of 2020 and Ms. Naushina Ali, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in MCRCA No.362 of 2020, would submit that their respective applicants have been falsely implicated as no material is available against them for proceeding ahead to arrest them in the subject crime. They would submit that in view of the order passed in Ratnesh Singh Chouhan (supra) these anticipatory bail applications would be maintainable because the present is a case where there is no material against the applicants and in the event they are arrested they shall suffer irreparable loss. In substance they would endeavor to carve out a rare or exceptional case by referring to merits of the matter. According to them, if no case is made out against the applicants on the basis of material available in the case diary then an application can be filed directly before the High Court. To buttress their contention, learned counsels would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others (2018) 12 SCC 119 : (AIR 2018 SC (Criminal) 181), Gauhati High Court in Kwmta Gwra Brahma v. State of Assam (2015) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 453 : (2016 CriLJ 250 (Gau)) and Full Bench (a Bench of five Judges) judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. and another, Cri.Misc. Anticipation Bail App. u/S. 438 Cr.P.C.No. 1094 of 2020 (decided on 2-3-2020) and other connected cases.

5. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that even though the Sessions Court and the High Court have