Anticipatory bail jurisdiction upheld where threatened arrest in Delhi created territorial cause of action and liberty risk justified protection.

Section 438 CrPC was held not to be confined to the local court where the offence occurred, and a threatened arrest in Delhi was sufficient to create a part of the cause of action under Article 226(2) for territorial jurisdiction. The objection based on an alternative remedy was rejected because an imminent threat to personal liberty makes that remedy inadequate. On the facts, anticipatory bail was granted because arrest was reasonably apprehended, investigation was complete, charge-sheets had been filed against other accused, the applicant's name did not appear in the FIR, and no material showed a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to entertain the request for anticipatory bail where arrest was apprehended in Delhi though the offence was alleged in Uttar Pradesh; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to entertain the request for anticipatory bail where arrest was apprehended in Delhi though the offence was alleged in Uttar Pradesh.

Analysis: Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains no limitation confining anticipatory bail to the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. The provision is intended to protect personal liberty and is available where a person has reason to believe that arrest may follow. The Court also held that Article 226(2) confers jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part, and a threatened arrest in Delhi gives rise to a part of the cause of action there. The objection based on an alternative remedy was rejected because an imminent threat to liberty makes such remedy neither adequate nor efficacious.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to consider anticipatory bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension of arrest, the investigation was already complete, charge-sheets had been filed against other accused, his name did not appear in the FIR, and there was no material showing likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. The allegations were viewed in the overall background as insufficient to justify denial of the protective relief. The Court applied the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted where the circumstances show a need to protect personal liberty and no countervailing risk is demonstrated.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the petitioner was protected against arrest by being enlarged on anticipatory bail on the terms directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers concurrent jurisdiction on a High Court or Court of Session where arrest is reasonably apprehended, and a threatened deprivation of liberty within the territorial limits of the High Court gives rise to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---