Territorial jurisdiction exists for anticipatory bail applications where arrest is apprehended, regardless of offense location under Section 438 CrPC.

The DSC held that territorial jurisdiction exists for entertaining anticipatory bail applications where arrest is apprehended, regardless of where the alleged offense occurred. Following Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the court distinguished between jurisdiction for cognizance of offenses and bail matters, noting Section 438 CrPC does not restrict HC or Sessions Court jurisdiction. The court emphasized that bail relates to arrest and detention, therefore any appropriate court within whose jurisdiction arrest is apprehended has jurisdiction to grant bail. Application disposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail
3. Evidence and Allegations Against the Applicant

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
It was argued by the applicant/accused that the court has territorial jurisdiction since the applicant resides in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, and the apprehension of arrest is also in New Delhi. The applicant's counsel cited the judgment in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., which held that an appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the arrest is apprehended will have jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. The complainant department countered that the competent court of jurisdiction is at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, where the investigation is being supervised, and the proceedings should continue there. The court, however, found that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present application based on the law laid down in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma and other supporting judgments.

2. Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail:
The applicant's counsel argued that anticipatory bail is maintainable as the applicant has a reasonable apprehension of arrest. The complainant department contended that anticipatory bail should not be granted in GST matters, referencing Union of India Vs. Sapna Jain & Ors., and argued that the withdrawal of a co-accused's application amounts to dismissal on merits. The court noted that the applicant must show a reasonable belief of arrest in a non-bailable case, as mere fear is not sufficient. The court's decision on territorial jurisdiction implies that the anticipatory bail application is maintainable in this court.

3. Evidence and Allegations Against the Applicant:
The applicant's counsel submitted documents showing the applicant's role as a consultant for M/s Goodhealth Industries Pvt. Ltd., arguing that no incriminating evidence was found during searches. The complainant department highlighted a racket involving 3,000 fake companies and Rs. 15,000 Crores of ineligible ITC, with the investigation being conducted under the supervision of Meerut Zonal Office. The court focused on the jurisdictional issue and did not delve deeply into the merits of the evidence and allegations at this stage.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present application for anticipatory bail and scheduled the matter for further arguments on June 16, 2023.

---