Anticipatory bail jurisdiction and PMLA Section 45 remain available where special circumstances and bona fide apprehension of arrest are shown.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits concurrent anticipatory bail jurisdiction in the High Court and Court of Session, and direct access to the High Court is not barred where special circumstances exist; on the facts discussed, prior connected proceedings and the apprehended arrest justified that approach. In relation to proposed proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the text states that the challenge based on Section 45 did not prevent anticipatory bail, and that the post-2018 amendment did not revive the twin conditions as urged. The matter was at an investigative stage, the apprehension of arrest was treated as bona fide, and protection against arrest was granted subject to conditions safeguarding investigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Sessions; (ii) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in connection with the proposed investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the challenge based on Section 45 and the apprehension of arrest.

Issue (i): Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Sessions.

Analysis: Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session. The statutory text does not impose a mandatory bar requiring prior recourse to the Court of Session. At the same time, direct approach to the High Court is ordinarily expected to be justified by special or compelling circumstances. On the facts, the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail in the connected matter, together with the admitted enforcement investigation arising from the same factual matrix and the publicised apprehension of arrest, furnished sufficient special reason for approaching the High Court directly.

Conclusion: The application before the High Court was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in connection with the proposed investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the challenge based on Section 45 and the apprehension of arrest.

Analysis: The apprehension of arrest was treated as bona fide because the Enforcement Directorate had initiated investigation and the apprehension was linked to the connected CBI proceedings and the reported proposed PMLA action. The Court held that the 2018 amendment to Section 45 did not revive the twin conditions in the manner urged by the respondent, and that the decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah continued to govern the issue. The Court also noted that the matter was at an initial investigative stage, that the alleged role required evidence-based scrutiny, and that conditions could protect the investigation while preserving personal liberty.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and protection against arrest was directed subject to conditions designed to secure cooperation with investigation and prevent misuse of liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 permits direct recourse to the High Court in appropriate cases where special circumstances exist, and the post-amendment Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not displace the constitutional protection of personal liberty so as to bar anticipatory bail on the facts found.

---