Concurrent anticipatory bail jurisdiction allows direct High Court access, with interim pre-arrest protection granted on facts and liberty concerns.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session for anticipatory bail, so prior approach to the Sessions Court is not mandatory. On the facts, interim pre-arrest protection was considered appropriate because the applicant was not named in the ECIR, had not yet been implicated in the scheduled offence, and there was material indicating cooperation. The note also recognises that in PMLA matters the twin conditions under Section 45 are relevant, but the material then placed did not justify denial of protection at that stage. Article 21 was treated as supporting interim liberty, subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain the anticipatory bail application without the applicant first approaching the Court of Session; and (ii) whether, on the facts presented, interim protection from arrest was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain the anticipatory bail application without the applicant first approaching the Court of Session.

Analysis: Section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. The choice of forum is discretionary, and the provision does not create a mandatory hierarchy requiring prior resort to the Court of Session. The scope of the provision is to protect personal liberty where there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and it cannot be read narrowly so as to add restrictions not found in the text.

Conclusion: The High Court could entertain the application directly, and the objection that the applicant had not first approached the Court of Session was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts presented, interim protection from arrest was warranted.

Analysis: The applicant was not named in the ECIR, had not yet been implicated in the scheduled offence, and the record showed cooperation through appearances by representatives. The Court also noted that the matter involved allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the rigour of the twin conditions under Section 45 must be considered, but the material placed did not yet establish a sufficient basis to deny pre-arrest protection at that stage. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interim protection was considered appropriate till the next date of hearing.

Conclusion: Interim protection from arrest was granted, subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was afforded interim pre-arrest protection, while the merits of the prosecution case and the final relief remained open for further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session, and anticipatory bail may be granted where the material, assessed on broad probabilities, shows a genuine apprehension of arrest and warrants protection of personal liberty.

---