Territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail is confined to the court linked to the offence and investigation.

Anticipatory bail jurisdiction under section 438 CrPC lies with the High Court or Court of Session having territorial nexus with the offence and investigation, not with a court chosen solely because the applicant resides within its limits. The majority read the Code's scheme, including the place of inquiry and trial under section 177, remand under section 167(2), and Article 22(2), as showing that criminal process is ordinarily anchored to the local forum of the offence. Anticipatory bail remains a protective remedy for personal liberty, but its exercise cannot normally cross territorial limits, except for a limited transitional situation connected with arrest and production before the competent court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court or Court of Session can entertain an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the criminal case or first information report is registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, and whether the application in the present matter was maintainable before this Court.

Analysis: The majority held that the expression "High Court" or "Court of Session" in section 438 refers to the court having territorial nexus with the offence and the investigation, and not any High Court or Court of Session chosen merely because the applicant resides there. The scheme of the Code, including the place of inquiry and trial under section 177, the production and remand provisions under section 167(2), and the constitutional mandate of Article 22(2), was treated as indicating that criminal process is ordinarily anchored to the local forum of the offence. While anticipatory bail is a beneficent provision meant to protect personal liberty, the majority concluded that its exercise cannot transgress the territorial limits of another High Court or Court of Session, save for a limited transitional situation connected with arrest and production before the competent court.

Conclusion: The Court held that this Court lacked jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail on the facts placed before it, and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of a territorial limitation on anticipatory bail jurisdiction, and the individual application failed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: For anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, jurisdiction lies with the High Court or Court of Session having territorial connection with the offence or apprehended arrest, and not with a court having no such territorial nexus merely because the applicant resides within its limits.

---