Territorial limits on anticipatory bail jurisdiction confine forum choice to the court where the alleged offence arose.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was interpreted as territorially confined to the High Court or Court of Session having jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was committed. Reading Section 438 with Sections 437, 439 and the ordinary territorial rule in Section 177, the Court rejected forum choice based on the accused's apprehension of arrest or place of residence. The bench arrangement under the Permanent Bench at Ranchi Act also required filing in the notified territorial forum, so matters arising from Singhbhum lay before the Ranchi Bench and not the Patna seat. The petition was therefore not maintainable before the Patna seat.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits grant of anticipatory bail by any High Court or any Court of Session in India irrespective of the locale of the alleged offence. (ii) Whether the Patna High Court at Patna had jurisdiction to entertain the application when the offence was registered in Singhbhum, within the territorial reach of the Ranchi Bench.

Issue (i): Whether Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits grant of anticipatory bail by any High Court or any Court of Session in India irrespective of the locale of the alleged offence.

Analysis: The expression "the High Court" and "the Court of Session" in Section 438 was read as referring to the court having territorial jurisdiction over the offence. The section was construed in the setting of the Code as a whole, particularly Sections 437 and 439, and alongside the general rule in Section 177 that offences are ordinarily to be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction they were committed. Articles 214 and 225 of the Constitution of India, as well as the general clauses provisions, were treated as reinforcing the territorial character of criminal jurisdiction. The Court rejected the competing view that apprehension of arrest or residence of the accused could confer forum choice anywhere in the country.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 can be sought only from the High Court or Court of Session having territorial jurisdiction over the locale of the alleged offence.

Issue (ii): Whether the Patna High Court at Patna had jurisdiction to entertain the application when the offence was registered in Singhbhum, within the territorial reach of the Ranchi Bench.

Analysis: The Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Ranchi Act, 1976 and the relevant High Court rule were applied to hold that cases arising from the notified districts were to be filed and heard at Ranchi, subject to the Chief Justice's discretion. Since the case arose from Singhbhum, it fell within the jurisdiction assigned to the Ranchi Bench and not the Patna seat at Patna. The Court held that permitting parties to choose the forum would defeat the statutory scheme and render the bench arrangement nugatory.

Conclusion: The Patna seat lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition; the matter lay before the Ranchi Bench.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable before the Patna seat because anticipatory bail jurisdiction under Section 438 is territorially confined to the court having jurisdiction over the offence, and the case belonged to the Ranchi Bench area.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is territorially limited to the High Court or Court of Session having jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was committed.

---