TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be entertained by the High Court or Court of Session within whose jurisdiction the applicant resides though the apprehended arrest is by police of another State; and whether, on the facts, the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Analysis: Section 438 is directed to a person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested, and the relief operates at the moment of arrest. The provision is beneficial in nature and is intended to protect a person from unnecessary humiliation and hardship. Nothing in the section confines jurisdiction only to the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is registered. Section 48 of the Code recognises pursuit by police into any place in India, which supports the view that the remedy may be sought where the person apprehends arrest and ordinarily resides. The Court held that this interpretation accords with justice and convenience. On merits, the Court found that immediate arrest by the Kerala police would cause hardship and inconvenience, and granted interim protection of limited duration to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate court in Kerala.
Conclusion: The application for anticipatory bail was maintainable before the Karnataka High Court, and the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought, subject to the conditions imposed.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail with territorial jurisdiction recognised in favour of the court where he resided, and the relief was made operative for a limited period to permit recourse to the appropriate court in Kerala.
Ratio Decidendi: For anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court or Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant apprehends arrest and ordinarily resides, even if the anticipated arrest is in connection with a case registered outside that jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
