Anticipatory bail jurisdiction may extend beyond territorial offence location where arrest is apprehended and protection is sought.

Section 438 jurisdiction for anticipatory bail depends on where arrest is apprehended, not where the offence was allegedly committed. The High Court treated bail jurisdiction as distinct from jurisdiction to take cognizance and held that nothing in Section 438 confines the power to offences within the court's territorial limits. Concurrent jurisdiction of competent courts in different States was therefore not excluded, and the availability of interim anticipatory bail supported jurisdiction to grant protection for the necessary period. The jurisdiction objection was rejected, and anticipatory bail could be entertained despite the alleged offence arising outside Delhi.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant anticipatory bail in respect of offences alleged to have been committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The question of jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail was treated as distinct from the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Since bail is directed against arrest and detention, the court within whose jurisdiction arrest is apprehended may exercise power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that nothing in Section 438 restricts the High Court or Court of Session to offences committed only within its own territory, and that concurrent jurisdiction of competent courts in different States is not excluded. The existence of jurisdiction to grant interim anticipatory bail also supports jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for the necessary period.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and grant anticipatory bail despite the alleged offence having arisen outside Delhi, and the objection to jurisdiction was rejected.

---