Honble SAXENA, J. – This order will dispose of two applications,-(1) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3112/1996 and (2) S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3107/1996 filed by petitioners Smt. Shalini Sharma & Rajesh Sharma respectively. (2) Heard. Perused the case diary in extenso. (3) At the very outset, Shri B.P. Agarwal, learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of these applications.It has been strongly urged by him that the petitioners did not file any bail application under Sec. 438, CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar and have directly filed these applications before this Court, whereas the continuous practice of this Court has been to entertain the anticipatory bail application after the accused petitioner exha- usts his remedy before the concerned Court of Session. For this, Shri Agrawal has placed reliance on the decisions in Manzoor Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan, (1); and (2) Kamal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2), wherein it has been held that unless extra ordinary reason exists, the application under Sec. 438 CrPC should be moved before the Court of Sessions before approaching the High Court for grant of antici- patory bail. (4) On the other hand, it has been strenuously urged by Shri A.K. Gupta,learned counsel for the petitioners that as per provisions contained in Sec.438 CrPC, when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply for antici- patory bail, and, therefore, the Court of Session and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction and it is open for thepetitioner as to from which court he wants to seek relef.Shri Guptasubmitted that the Press Media has blown up this case out of proportions, with the result that the town of Alwar has been surcharged with tension, and that various political parties and Women Orgnisations are interested in taking lives of the accused petitioners and to mar the political career of petitioner Smt. Shalimi Sharma and that no good Lawyer at Alwar is willing to accept the brief on behalf of the accused petitioners for filing application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. Hence in such circumstances which are unusual and extra ordinary, this court should use its power under Sec. 438,CrPC with- out asking the petitioners to first file such an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. Hence in such circumstances which are unusual and extra ordinary, this court should use its power under Sec. 438,CrPC with- out asking the petitioners to first file such an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. In support of his contentions, Shri Gupta cited the decision in Ram Lakhan Tikkiwal vs. State of Rajasthan, (3), wherein it has been held that application for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438, CrPC can be directly instituted before the High Court. Shri Gupta further placed reliance on the decision in Y. Chan- drasekhar Rao vs Y.V. Kamal Kumari,(4), wherein a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under Sec. 438, CrPC concurrent power is conferred on the High Court and the Court of Sessions, but the choice is given to the affected person to move either of the two fora, and that such an option to the affected person cannot be impaired by any restrictive interpretation, contrary to the specific language of Sec. 438, CrPC on the strength of rule of practice, and that the practice in Andhra Pradesh High Court to return such applications is subversive of the guaranteed fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. (5) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In Ram Lakhans case(supra), the accused petitioner had made serious allegations in his application against the concerned Sessions Judge. He had also filed an application under Sec. 407, CrPC to transfer his case from the Court of trial Magistrate, wherein also he made serious allegations against the trial Magistrate and as well as the Sessions Judge.This Court, therefore, keeping in view those peculiar facts, held that an application under Sec. 438, CrPC can be directly instituted in the High Court. (6) It is true that unambiguous and explicit provisions contained in Sec.438, CrPC proclaim that any person having reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, may apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for a direction for grant of anticipatory bail. It indicates that there is no bar or prohibition for entertaining such application for anticipatory bail directly in the High Court. Similarly, under Sec. 439, CrPC the High Court and Court of Sessions have concurrent powers. It indicates that there is no bar or prohibition for entertaining such application for anticipatory bail directly in the High Court. Similarly, under Sec. 439, CrPC the High Court and Court of Sessions have concurrent powers. But, this court has consistently held that applications for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438, CrPC as also under Sec. 439, CrPC should ordinarily first of all be filed in the concerned court of Sessions and if they are rejected then such applications should be entertained in the High Court.The obvious reason for this is that it would be more convenient to approach the Court of Sessions in the first instance. It is also easier for the Public Prosecutor representing the State at the Court of Sessions to obtain, without any loss of time, instructions from the concerned investigating agency. It is also move convenient for the accused/affected party due to a garden of variety of factors like proximity of the forum, easy availability of the case diary and the advocate etc.It is also lesser expensive to the affected party. In the event of the Court of Session in not granting anticipatory bail, it is always open to approach the High Court and while exercising discretion under Sec. 438, CrPC, the High Court will also have the benefits of views of the Court of Session. If this consistent and salutary practice of this Court is deviated then it would definitely open flood gates for application under Sec. 438, CrPC in the High Court, and valuable time of this Court shall be misutilised. (7) However, in unusual and extra ordinary circumstances, such an application for anticipatory bail can be entertained by this Court directly but the discretion vests in the Judge hearing such application. (8) In Manzoor Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan, (supra), it has been held that if the circumstances and exigency of the case so require, application under Sec. 438, CrPC can be entertained by the High Court even though the Court of Session may not have been moved earlier, but that appears to be only an exception and not a general rule. The general rule is that the Court of Session must be moved first and after exhausting that remedy, the affected party should approach High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The general rule is that the Court of Session must be moved first and after exhausting that remedy, the affected party should approach High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. In my respectful submission, the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Chendrasekhar Rao vs. Y.V. Kamala Kumari, (supra) has no binding effect on this Court rather it has only persu- asive value. Therefore, it cannot be made a rule of thumb that it is only the option or choice of the affected party to choose the forum for filing application for grant of bail under Sec. 438 CrPC. (9) However, if the facts and circumstances of a particular case appear to be unusual or extra ordinary or there is such an exigency that the affected party cannot seek his remedy before the Court of Sessions, then there is no legal bar or impediment for entertaining the application for anticipatory bail directly in the High Court. (10) In the case on hand, the Press Media has published various articles, news items about this case.The petitioners have alleged that due to the surcharged atmo- sphere in the Alwar town. It is not possible for them to engage a good lawyer of their choice.They have also apprehended danger to their lives. therefore, keeping in view these unusual and extra ordinary circumstances. I feel that these bail applications should not be thrown over board simply on the technical ground that the petitioners have not filed their bail applications before the Court of Session. Ju dge Alwar, and not exhausted that remedy. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant is hereby repelled. (11) As regards, merits of these bail applications, it has been strenuously canvassed by shri A.K. Gupta that the incident took place when petitioner Rajesh Sharma allegedly committed rape with complainant Rechna Gupta for the first time, in May 1995, where the FIR has been lodged as late as in June, 1996 and the delay has not been explained.Shri Gupta submitted that due to political rivalry and to mar political career of Smt. Shalini Sharma, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner, who are respectable persons and willing to co-operate with the inve- stigating agency and, therefore, they should be granted anticipatory bail. (12) On the other hand, Shri B.P. Agrawal, learned Advocate General and Miss Sunita Satyarthi learned counsel for the complainant have stoutly opposed these bail applications and contended that it is a clear cut case, where an educated and helpless girl Rechana Gupta, who was employed by the petitioners in the first ins- tance as a Teacher in the School run by them and thereafter, was planted a dumy Chairman of Navodaya Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Alwar, has been made a victim of the youthful lust of petitioner Rajesh Sharma, that Rajesh Sharma with the connivance of his wife, petitioner Shalini Sharma off and on sexually exploited the prosecutrix with the result that she also became pregnant. The petitioner Shalini Sharma using her authority and political power managed to have abortion on the prosecutrix in the Pink City Nursing Home, Jaipur where subsequently entries in the Hospital record were also got changed. They have contended that an amount Rs. 3.85 lacs was given as grant-in-aid by the State Government in favour of Navodaya Samaj Vikas Samiti, Alwar for certain welfare projects and that the petitioners wanted to withdraw and misappropriate that amount, to which the prosecutrix refused. According to them, it is a case of continuing offence and as such,there is no question of any delay in filing of FIR. They have contended that the petitioners are deliberately avoiding their arrest and are not co-operating with the investigating agency, and that the investigating officer has to recover from them various docu- ments including obscene photographs, through which they used to black mail prosecutrix Rachna Gupta, and therefore, the petitioners should not be granted anticipatory bail. (13) I have carefully perused the case dairy in extenso as also statement of the prosecutrix under Secs. 161 & 164 CrPC. It would not be proper for me to comment upon merits of the case because it may adversely affect the rights of the parties but suffice it to say that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the investigation material collected by the investigating agency, the accu- sation made against both the petitioners prima facie do not appear to be accentuated by any malafide or any political rivalry, I am convinced that if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail then certainly it would adversely affect the investigation. Therefore, I do not find any valid and sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners Shalini Sharma & Rajesh Sharma. Accordingly these bail applications are dismissed. The petitioners should appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate in the investigation.