Territorial jurisdiction limits anticipatory bail powers; an application for an out-of-jurisdiction FIR was held not maintainable.

Territorial jurisdiction limits the exercise of anticipatory bail powers under Section 438: a High Court cannot entertain such an application where the FIR is registered outside its local jurisdiction. Applying that settled principle, the Court found that the petitioners' request concerned an FIR registered in Madhya Pradesh, beyond the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's territorial limits. The application was therefore not maintainable before that Court and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 when the FIR was registered at a police station outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to an FIR registered in Madhya Pradesh, while invoking the High Court's powers under Section 438. The Court relied on the settled view that the power to grant anticipatory bail is territorially linked and cannot be exercised in respect of a case registered beyond the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction. Applying that principle, the Court held that a request for permanent anticipatory bail in relation to an out-of-jurisdiction FIR was not maintainable before it.

Conclusion: The High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 in relation to an FIR registered outside the local limits of its territorial jurisdiction.

---