Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State and counsel for the informant. 2. There is a case and counter case. The petitioner is a reputed doctor of Ranchi and the occurrence in question is said to have taken place within the premises attached to his house, which is the place where he examines his patients. 3. According to petitioners, petitioner no.1 had suffered injury at the hands of the prosecution party, and the deceased was one of the three persons, who entered the premises and assaulted petitioner No.1. According to him, these three persons were assaulted by the large number of persons sitting out-side the consultation room after the petitioner no.1 raised an alarm. 4. Counsel for the State fairly submitted that so far as the identity of the assailants is concerned, there is no clear evidence on record of any independent witnesses to show as to who had assaulted these three persons sic were victims of mob fury, cannot be ruled out, particularly when the mob found the doctor petitioner No.1 to have suffered bleeding injuries. 5. In these circumstances, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the question of right of private defence which may arise in favour of the petitioners, since it appears to be their case that those three persons had come to extort money from petitioner No. 1. 6. It appears that the facts so far collected by the police in the case diary produced before the Court, do not prove the involvement of the petitioners in the assault. Petitioner no.1 is an eminent doctor of Ranchi and there is no fear of his absconding. Petitioner No.2 is his son, and Petitioner No.3 is his compounder. 7. In these circumstances, the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court by order dated 29.9.1993 is hereby confirmed. 8. Counsel for the State submitted that it has almost become a practice of this Court to insist that before an application for anticipatory bail is entertained by this Court, it is insisted that the court of Sessions Judge must first be moved. I am not aware of any such practice, nor has any law or authority been cited before me which places a bar on the High Courts jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused must first seek relief before the Sessions Judge. I am not aware of any such practice, nor has any law or authority been cited before me which places a bar on the High Courts jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused must first seek relief before the Sessions Judge. Section 438 confers in clear terms a discretion upon the High Court as well as the Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail. So far the accused is concerned, he has an option to move either to Sessions Court or the High Court. There is no justification either to curtail the power of the High Court conferred by law in clear terms or to curtail the right of the accused to choose the forum permitted by law. I am of the view that this application for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable, even if the petitioners have not first moved the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is a different matter that in a given case, having regard to the complexity of the factual background of the case, or for any other good reason, the High Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. since it finds that the matter can be more effectively dealt with by the Sessions Judge. In such a case this court may insist that the petitioner must first move the sessions Judge.