Anticipatory bail jurisdiction remains distinct from trial jurisdiction, but economic offence allegations can still defeat pre-arrest protection.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was considered in a case involving alleged fraudulent land transactions and an economic offence registered by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court rejected the territorial jurisdiction objection, holding that jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail is distinct from jurisdiction to try the offence, and that protection may be sought where arrest is apprehended. On merits, the allegations were treated as part of a structured fraudulent transaction, and the investigation was at a stage where custodial interrogation had not been ruled out. The petition was therefore held not maintainable on the jurisdiction objection and, in any event, the petitioner was found not entitled to anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail could be granted when the alleged offence and investigation were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in an economic offence arising from the alleged fraudulent land transactions.

Analysis: The petition invoked the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis that arrest was apprehended in connection with a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate. The challenge to maintainability on territorial grounds was rejected by holding that the jurisdiction to consider anticipatory bail is distinct from the jurisdiction to try the offence, and that a person apprehending arrest may seek protection from the Court within whose jurisdiction arrest is apprehended. On merits, the allegations disclosed a structured fraudulent transaction involving the allotment and transfer of plots, and the Court treated the matter as an economic offence. The Court also considered that the investigation was at a relevant stage and that custodial interrogation was not ruled out in such offences.

Conclusion: The petition for anticipatory bail was not maintainable on the respondent's objection as to jurisdiction, and in any event the petitioner was held not entitled to anticipatory bail on merits.

---