Anticipatory bail jurisdiction extends where the applicant resides within the court's territory, even if the case is pending elsewhere.

Section 438 CrPC was analysed as conferring anticipatory bail power on the High Court or Court of Session without limiting the remedy to the court within whose territorial limits the FIR or criminal case was registered. The focus in anticipatory bail remains the applicant and the reasonable apprehension of arrest. On that basis, residence within the High Court's jurisdiction was treated as a sufficient ground to entertain the application even though the connected criminal case was pending outside that jurisdiction, and the application was held maintainable with anticipatory bail granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail when the criminal case is pending before a court outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the applicant resides within the High Court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers power on the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. The expression used does not confine the remedy only to the High Court or Court of Session within whose territorial limits the case was registered. In considering anticipatory bail, the Court is primarily concerned with the applicant and whether there is a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. The earlier Division Bench decisions relied upon were treated as supporting the view that residence within the jurisdiction is a sufficient basis to entertain the application, and the constitutional provisions regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of High Courts did not cut down that power.

Conclusion: The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail applications of a petitioner residing within its jurisdiction even if the connected criminal case is pending outside that jurisdiction; the applications were maintainable and anticipatory bail was granted.

---