Judgment 1. In this application a point has arisen as to whether this application for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable in the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court and also another point for consideration is as to whether a case has been made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts involved in this case is that the petitioner apprehends his arrest on the basis of certain allegations in Gopalpur police station case No. 17(2)81 pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachhia at Bhagalpur. The case has been instituted by the Sub-divisional Block Development Officer, Naugachhia on 8-2-1981. The offence is alleged to have committed with respect to execution of certain scheme i.e., Scheme No.1, 1980-81 for digging Tirashi Pokhar by the Circle Officer, Gopalpur. There is also mention in the first information report with regard to another scheme of Dharhara Pokhar Scheme No.2 1980-81 in Gopalpur Circle. The allegation was regarding bungling having been committed constituting an offence and also mis-appropriation of fund. It appears that prior to the .lodging of the first information report. a report had been submitted after enquiry to the District Magistrate. Bhagalpur by thc Sub-divisional Officer Naugachhia and the District Magistrate. Bhagalpur on perusal of the report had sent a confidential direction to the informant to institute a criminal case against the Agents, who had been named in the first information report and also against the petitioner. The petitioner happened to be the Circle Officer of Gopalpur at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Accordingly the application in hand has been filed in the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) in the event of arrest of the petitioner in Gopalpur P .S. case No. 17(2)81. 3. While the matter had been placed before a learned single Judge. an objection had been raised on behalf of the State that since the criminal case relates to Naugachhia which falls within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court even after creation of the permanent Bench of the Patna High Court at Ranchi, the application is not maintainable in this Bench; rather it has to go to Patna High Court. 4. an objection had been raised on behalf of the State that since the criminal case relates to Naugachhia which falls within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court even after creation of the permanent Bench of the Patna High Court at Ranchi, the application is not maintainable in this Bench; rather it has to go to Patna High Court. 4. Thereafter, by the orders of the Hon ble the Chief Justice, this application has been placed before this Bench both for deciding as to whether the application is maintainable and consequently for the disposal of the application. 5. It appears that at present the petitioner is posted as Circle Officer Pratapur, Anchal in the district of Hazaribagh. 6. From the facts stated above, it appears that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest at Pratapur in the district of Hazaribagh which is within the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. On plain reading of Sec. 438 of the Code, it would appear that either the High Court or the Court of Session can give a direction in appropriate cases that a person seeking relief under Sec. 438 of the Code be released on bail in the event of such arrest when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence. Of course, certain conditions have to be imposed while giving such direction and that is not relevant either to mention or discuss. The striking point to be stated will be that there is absolutely no indication with regard to any limitation so far jurisdiction of a particular Court is concerned. 7. The prayer for grant of bail to some extent can be equated with equitable relief and by nature it can be said to be an urgent matter warranting speedy disposal. This finds support from the different provisions laid down under Sections 79, 80 and 81 of the Code. 7. The prayer for grant of bail to some extent can be equated with equitable relief and by nature it can be said to be an urgent matter warranting speedy disposal. This finds support from the different provisions laid down under Sections 79, 80 and 81 of the Code. The substance of these three provisions in the Code is that a warrant can be forwarded for execution outside the jurisdiction of that forwarding Court When such warrant of arrest is executed outside the district of the issuing Court, the persons arrested will be produced before the Executive Magistrate or the District Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the arrest was made excepting if the Court which had issued warrant of arrest is within 30 Kms. of the place of arrest or is nearer that the Executive Magistrate, the District Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police as indicated above. Further it appears from the provisions occurring in Section 81 of the Code that in appropriate cases even in non-bailable offence the Court within whose jurisdiction the arrest has been made and" outside the jurisdiction of the Court which has issued a warrant of arrest can grant bail. 8. It will be relevant to mention here the provisions contained in Sec.2 of the High Court at Patna (establishment of a Permanent Bench at Ranchi) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) which runs as follows: - "There shall be established a permanent bench of the High Court at Patna at Ranchi, and such Judges of the High Court at Patna, being no less than three in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time, nominate, shall sit at Ranchi in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Hazaribagh, Giridih, Dhanbad, Ranchi, Palamau and Singhbhum. Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Patna." Although the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court has been specifically laid down to a case arising in the district of Hazaribagh, Giridh, Dhanbad, Ranchj, Palamau and Singhbhum, but the proviso has made jurisdictional phenomenon not rigid. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear to be any occasion to take the aid of the proviso or absolutely there is no occasion to say, as argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, that in absence of necessary permission, the application cannot be heard at Ranchi Bench. When the proviso has enable certain cases falling within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench to be heard at Patna, it will be deemed that any such cases falling outside the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench can be heard at Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court with necessary permission. 9. In the case of B. R. Sinha v, The State 1982 Cri LJ 61, the Calcutta High Court has dealt with this subject matter. It has laid down as follows:- "The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail of a petitioner who resides within the jurisdiction of High Court, though he apprehends arrest in connection with a case which has been started outside the jurisdiction of such Court." In another decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pritam Singh V/s. State of Punjab 1980 Cri LJ 1174 it has been held that an application for anticipatory bail with respect to a person who was apprehending arrest in a case outside the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court could be granted anticipatory bail by the Delhi High Court. 10 In the instant case it appears that the petitioner is at present working as a Government servant within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. That being so, he is apprehending his arrest within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench. In view of the discussions made above, he appears to be perfectly within the legal limits to file an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. Of course, if the petitioner would not have any nexus or any basis to be within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, in that case the limitations and restrictions laid down in the Act would have been applicable to him, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the scheme behind grant of bail and also introduction of the new relief as provided under S. 438 of the Code, the application is perfectly maintainable. 11. 11. The petition being maintainable, the next point for consideration is the disposal of the application on merit for grant of anticipatory bail. It appears from the first information report and also the statement made in the application itself that the institution of the case against the petitioner has been on the basis of long drawn enquiry and certain materials complicated in nature. That being so, it appears advisable that the original Court, where the case is pending, should adjudicate the prayer for grant of bail and absolutely no case has been made out for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court. 12. In the result, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.