( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code ). The petitioners are shown as accused by the Talikoti police Station of Bijapur in their crime No. 15/84. The offence involved in that case is one punishable under s. 302 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE normal practice in vogue about a year has been that petitioners claiming relief of anticipatory bail under s. 438 of the Code, would approach the jurisdictional Sessions Judge at the first instance and thereafter if need be, this Court. That practice has been evolved in the light of K. C. Iyya v. State of Karnataka, (1983 (2) Kar. L. J. 8 ). The following observations of this Court in the above decision may be noted: "normally a person seeking anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the code should approach the Court of session in the first instance. This would serve the ends of justice public interest and also the administration of justice. There may be cases with special reasons or involving special circumstances necessitating the person concerned to approach the High Court at the first instance. If the reasons assigned by him to approach the High Court at the first instance are found genuine, such an application may be considered by the High Court. That decision was arrived at after hearing the learned members of the bar and taking into consideration several authorities including Gurubaksh singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab (AIR. 1980 S. C. 1632) and Sher Singh v. Singha Singh 1972, Crl. L. J. 1607) the reasons that had weighed with r. S. Pathak, C. J. , (as he then was) of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sher Singh more than 15 years ago in favour of the practice of the petitioners approaching the jurisdictional sessions Judge at the first instance, though in a situation somewhat different from the present one, hold good even now and in fact there is a greater and compelling reason to follow that reasoning and to adopt a similar practice in the case of petitions under s. 438 of the Code. ( 3 ) FORTUNATELY, subsequent to k. C. Iyya which was rendered in the month of June 1983, the said practice is being followed by all concerned and that has almost taken the shape of a healthy convention. ( 3 ) FORTUNATELY, subsequent to k. C. Iyya which was rendered in the month of June 1983, the said practice is being followed by all concerned and that has almost taken the shape of a healthy convention. There are no reasons to deviate from that rule. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction this court has laid down broad guidelines not merely in K. C. Iyya but also in other cases including Murugesh v. State of Karnataka (1983 (2) Kar. L. J. , 129) for being followed by Courts of Sessions and Special Judges or Special courts in Karnataka State in the matter of exercising their powers under s. 438 of the Code. ( 4 ) WHILE submitting that this court has not taken into consideration in K. C. Iyya several decisions of the other High Courts taking a contrary view in the matter, the counsel for the petitioner placed before me (I) In Re Purnachandra Chatterjee v. State (1975 Crl. L. J. , 1815) (ii) Mohan Lal v. Premchand (AIR, 1980 H. P. 36) (iii) Kesavan Sivan Pillai v. Sree dharan Rajamohan ( AIR 1978 Ker. 131 ) and (iv) In Re Puritipati Jagga reddy v. State ( AIR 1979 AP. 146 ) the last two deal with Criminal Revision arising under S. 397 of the Code. They do not deal with S. 438 thereof. I agree that a since sub-sec. (3) of S. 397 of the Code bars a second revision to High Court by the person who first approaches the Sessions Court, it would not be correct to ask the parties to invoke first the revisional jurisdiction (S. 397 of the Code) of the sessions Court. ( 5 ) PUMA Chandra Chatterjee does not directly deal with the question with which we are concerned though it throws some light on the ambit of S. 438 of the Code. In Mohanlal the Court observes that a person can file an application for anticipatory bail direct to this Court (High Court) and further observes that a person whose similar application is rejected in the Sessions Court is not precluded from approaching this Court again with another application of similar nature. In so far as revisions are concerned that High Court had made rules directing the parties to first approach the Sessions Judges or District Magistrates. In so far as revisions are concerned that High Court had made rules directing the parties to first approach the Sessions Judges or District Magistrates. Taking into consideration the changes brought about in the new Code of Criminal procedure re: revisional jurisdiction of the courts, it was observed in Mohan Lal that the earlier rules framed by that court should yield place to the new provisions. In so far as anticipatory bail applications are concerned, the court observes (in Mohonlal) that "for various reasons a person may move the High Court straight away and may not like to approach Sessions judge" and "since the section relates to the liberty of a person we would not like to impose any kind of restriction on his right to move the High court in the first instance. " It may be noted that in K. C. Iyya itself this court has stated that there may be special or compelling reasons for a persons to approach this Court straight away without approaching the Sessions Judge and in such cases this court may deal with such an application on merits without asking him to approach Sessions Judge. This court has also given by way of illustration some cases in this connection at paras 13 and 14. ( 6 ) HAVING carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I feel that there are no reasons to deviate from k. C. Iyya. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, this petition stands disposed of. It is open to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Sessions Judge and thereafter, if need be, this Court with an application of a similar nature. --- *** --- .