JUDGMENT : 1.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.197/2011 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 406,420/34 of IPC, therefore, theypreferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail directly before this Court without 'approachingthe Court of Session at the first instance. 2.On 29-12-2011 , when thismatter was listed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court made aquery whether without exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Court, havingthe lowest jurisdiction over the matter, this petition could be entertaineddirectly by this Court ? Learned Counsel for theapplicants sought time to argue on this point. 3.Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that Section 438 of Cr.PC provides concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, it isthe choice of the applicants to approach either of the Court. The applicantsare resident of Jhansi (U.P.) and husband and in-lawsof applicant No. 1 are big businessman of Sagar , theyare influential persons and have good connections in the Government as well asin the Police Department, therefore, it is not at all safe for the applicantsto go to Sagar and apply for anticipatory bail, thus,they directly approached this Court. Learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance onthe decision in Y. Chendrasekhara Rao and others Vs. Y.V. Kamala Kumari and others, 1993 Cri.LJ 3508 (1) and Balan Vs.State of Kerala , 2004 Cri.LJ 3427. 4.Learned Counsel appearing for the State and objector have opposed thecontentions raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants and submitted thatview of this Court is consistent since 1989 till today in regard to concurrentjurisdiction of the Court of Session and High Court, that though High Court hasconcurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session under Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.PC yet applicant should have approached the Courtof Session at the first instance. Counsel have placed reliance on the decisionsof this Court in Daini @ Raju Vs. State of M.P., 1989 JIJ 323; and Smt . Manisha Neema Vs. State of M.P., 2003(2) M.P.H.T. 303 , in which the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gurchanm Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 , have been followed. Counsel have placed reliance on the decisionsof this Court in Daini @ Raju Vs. State of M.P., 1989 JIJ 323; and Smt . Manisha Neema Vs. State of M.P., 2003(2) M.P.H.T. 303 , in which the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gurchanm Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 , have been followed. 5.I have gone through the decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Chendrasekhara Rao and others Vs.Y. V. Kamala Kwnari and others (supra) and Kerala High Court in Balan Vs.State of Kerala (supra), in which it has been heldthat the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC cannot be returned to the applicant because he did not move at the firstinstant to the Sessions Court, if such application is returned, that is illegaland violative of Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia. In the aforesaid judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Kerala High Court, the judgment passed by this Court in Daini @ Rajn Vs. State of M.P.(supra), has not been referred and considered, though so many judgments ofother High Courts have been considered. 6.I have also gone through the decisions of this Court in Daini @ Raju Vs . State of M.P.(supra) and Smt . Manisha Neema Vs. State of M.P. (supra), and the decision of Apex Court in Gurcharan Singhand others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (supra). The view of this Court hasbeen consistent since 1989 till today that though the High Court has concurrentjurisdiction with the Court of Sessions under Section 438 of Cr.PC yet the applicant should approach the Sessions Courtat the first instance, which would examine the facts and pass the suitableorder and may be in that case petitioner was not required to apply before thisCourt. 7.The applicants pleaded their apprehension that they are not safe to go to Sagar but the aforesaid apprehension has no basis. It maybe possible that husband and in-laws of applicant No. 1 are the big businessman of Sagar and they are influentialpersons, but it cannot be said that they own the Government and the PoliceDepartment. 7.The applicants pleaded their apprehension that they are not safe to go to Sagar but the aforesaid apprehension has no basis. It maybe possible that husband and in-laws of applicant No. 1 are the big businessman of Sagar and they are influentialpersons, but it cannot be said that they own the Government and the PoliceDepartment. It is also not necessary to personally appear before the SessionsCourt to pursue the application under Section 438 of Cr.PC 8.In view of the aforesaid decisions of Apex Court and this Court, I am of the view that the application under Section 438 of Cr.PC should have been filed by the applicants at the firstinstance before the Sessions Court at Sagar andthereafter, in case necessity arises, the applicants are free to approach thisCourt. 9.Thus, this application is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to fileapplication under Section 438 of Cr.PC before theSessions Court concerned and if such application is filed, the concernedSessions Court expected to decide the same expeditiously as far as possiblewithin one week from the date of filing of the aforesaid application. However,it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits ofthe case and the Sessions Court is free to decide the matter on its merits. 10.This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.