Territorial nexus for anticipatory bail can sustain jurisdiction, but immediate interim protection from arrest was refused.

An anticipatory bail application may be entertained by a court having a sufficient territorial nexus with the applicant, including residence or place of work, even where the alleged offence occurred elsewhere. On the facts noted, the applicant's Delhi residence and work, the company's registered office in Delhi, and links of some alleged suppliers to Delhi were sufficient to reject the territorial jurisdiction objection. However, the court declined to examine the merits at that stage and refused immediate interim protection from arrest, leaving the request for protective relief to be considered on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether any interim protection from arrest was warranted at that stage.

Issue (i): Whether the court at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The application was considered only for the limited purpose of jurisdiction. The record indicated that the applicant was residing/working in Delhi, the registered office of the company was in Delhi, and even on the departmental version some of the alleged fake suppliers were connected with Delhi. On this basis, and in light of the principle that anticipatory bail may be sought from the court having a territorial nexus with the applicant, the objection to jurisdiction was rejected.

Conclusion: The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application.

Issue (ii): Whether any interim protection from arrest was warranted at that stage.

Analysis: Although reliance was placed on the need for only documentary examination and the alleged absence of custodial interrogation, the court declined to examine the merits at that stage. It held that the peculiar facts of the cited case did not justify immediate interim protection in the present matter before a merits assessment.

Conclusion: No interim relief from arrest was granted.

Final Conclusion: The application was maintainable in Delhi on jurisdictional grounds, but the request for immediate protective relief was declined and the matter was left for consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for anticipatory bail may be entertained by a court having a sufficient territorial nexus with the applicant, including the place of residence or work, even if the alleged offence occurred outside that jurisdiction.

---