Territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail cannot extend beyond the State where the case was registered.

Territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail under Section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be confined to a court competent within the State's territorial limits. Reading Section 497-A with the scheme of the Code, including the provisions on the jurisdiction of the High Court, Court of Session and Magistrates, the court concluded that "a Court" means one having power to try the accused or commit the case for trial. An order of the High Court could not operate beyond Jammu and Kashmir to bind courts or police stations outside its territory, and the accused's residence did not create jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir had territorial jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under Section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a person against whom the criminal case had been registered at a police station outside the territorial limits of the State.

Analysis: Section 497-A had to be read with the scheme of the Code governing the territorial reach of criminal courts. The provisions relating to the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court of Session and Magistrates showed that their powers were territorially confined. Read with Sections 496, 497 and 167, the expression "a Court" and the power to grant anticipatory bail were understood to mean a court competent to try the accused or commit the case for trial. The Court also held that an order of the High Court could not operate with binding force beyond the State in relation to courts or police stations outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that residence of the accused could not confer such jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered with a police station outside the territorial limits of Jammu and Kashmir, and the petition was dismissed.

---