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. 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. The substance of these three provisions in the Code is that a warrant can be forwarded for execution outside the jurisd