ESWARA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have sought anticipatory bail, apprehending ar rest for alleged offences relating to theft and unlawful possession of railway property. Crime No. 10 of 1994 is registered against the 2nd petitioner in the Railway Protection Force Sta tion at Harihar. It is alleged that they apprehend arrest by the Railway Protection Force Police. ( 2 ) THE petition is opposed by the learned Government Pleader on the ground that under Section 438, Cr. P. C. no anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused apprehend arrest by the Railway Protection Force and also on merits. ( 3 ) THE scope of Section 438, Cr. P. C. was considered by this Court in Criminal Petition Numbers 1601 and 1682 of 1994. It was held that Sub-Section (1) of Section 438, is substantive in nature and that Sub-Sections (2) and (3) are only procedural and that directions udder Sub-Section (1) can be issued to any person including the police, to release the person or persons appre hending arrest. The learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that powers under Section 438, Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked in the case of alleged offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, ('unlawful Possession Act' for short) and the Railway Pro tection Force Act, 1957 ('rpf' Act for short ). ( 4 ) ELABORATING his contentions, the learned Government Pleader referred us to Section 4 of Cr. P. C. which is as follows : -"4 (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provi sions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise deal ing with such offences". His contention is that only offences under the IPC can be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of Cr. P. C. In his submission all offences under any other law shall be dealt with under the provi sions contained therein and not under the Cr. P. C. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Government Pleader on this aspect. P. C. In his submission all offences under any other law shall be dealt with under the provi sions contained therein and not under the Cr. P. C. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Government Pleader on this aspect. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4, it is laid down that all the offences under the IPC shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Cr. P. C. Under Sub-Section (2), the investigation, inquiry and trial of all other offences arising out of other laws shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of those enactments. Where there is no provision in the enactments other than the IPC, the application of the provisions of Cr. P. C. are not ruled out. In this context it is useful to refer to Section 11 of the RPF Act which is as follows : -"11. Searches and arrests how to be made - All searches and arrests made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, relat ing respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code". It is therefore clear that under Section 11 of RPF Act, all searches and arrests under that Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provi sions of Cr. P. C. relating to searches and arrest under the Code. So far as the arrest which in cludes release on bail are concerned, the provi sions of the Code relating to arrest are made applicable to the proceedings taken under RPF Act. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader next contended that Section 7 of Unlawful Posses sion Act provides for disposal of person arrested. This provision comes into operation only after the arrest of the accused person and it has no application to situation which arises prior to the arrest, for which Section 438, Cr. P. C. makes a provision. Here the submission of the learned Government Pleader is without substance. ( 6 ) THE next submission for the respondent is that under Section 3 of RPF Act, the members of Railway Protection Force are not police officers and that no directions can be issued to such officers, directing them to release the accused person on bail. Here the submission of the learned Government Pleader is without substance. ( 6 ) THE next submission for the respondent is that under Section 3 of RPF Act, the members of Railway Protection Force are not police officers and that no directions can be issued to such officers, directing them to release the accused person on bail. This contention is also without substance, in view of the fact that we have held that directions under Sub-Section (1) of Section 438, can be issued to any person, which includes an officer of the Railway Protection Force also. ( 7 ) WE were next referred to Section 6 of the Unlawful Possession Act, relating to the power to arrest without warrant and it was contended that any superior officer or member of the RPF may, without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person who has been con cerned in an offence punishable under the Act, or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists, and therefore no order of anticipatory bail can be granted. It was also submitted that if the accused is released on anticipatory bail, the power under Section 6 would become nugatory. There is noth ing in this provision which would restrict the exercise of the power conferred on the Session Court or the High Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C. ( 8 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that persons apprehending arrest for al leged offences under the Railway Property (Un lawful Possession) Act, 1966 and under the Rail way Protection Force Act, 1957 are not pre cluded from seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. and the petition is maintain able. ( 9 ) SO far as the merits of the case are con cerned, we are of the view that the petitioners should have approached the Court of Session in the first instance. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 438, Cr. P. C. High Court or the Sessions Court can be moved for an order to be released on bail in the event of arrest. It would be appropriate to move the Court of Session in the first instance and not to move the High Court directly. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 438, Cr. P. C. High Court or the Sessions Court can be moved for an order to be released on bail in the event of arrest. It would be appropriate to move the Court of Session in the first instance and not to move the High Court directly. It is open to the petitioners to move the Court of Session for the relief which they have sought, and if such a petition is filed it will be entertained by the Sessions Court and disposed according to law. With the above observation the petition is dis posed. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .