Territorial jurisdiction in anticipatory bail under CrPC depends on the offence, not the accused's residence.

Section 438 CrPC was analysed on territorial scope, and the text states that the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail is tied to the High Court for the State in relation to the offence. It further notes that criminal jurisdiction attaches to the offence, not the accused's residence, and that the Code's scheme in Sections 78 and 81 provides specific mechanisms where process or consideration must occur outside the issuing court's area. On that reasoning, the article concludes that a High Court should not entertain anticipatory bail where the offence is registered in another State.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the offence had been registered in another State.

Analysis: Section 438 of the Code empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct release on anticipatory bail, but the expression "High Court" in the Code is tied to the High Court for the State in relation to the offence. The scheme of Sections 78 and 81 shows that where execution of process arises outside the issuing court's jurisdiction, the Code makes specific provision for the court concerned to consider the information and documents before deciding bail. The Court reasoned that jurisdiction in criminal matters is attached to the offence and not to the residence of the accused, and that entertaining anticipatory bail applications on the basis of the offender's residence would create practical difficulty and lack of relevant material. The decision in Gurbaksh Singh did not address the territorial jurisdiction issue.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in respect of an offence registered in another State.

---