https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304699 Section 438 jurisdiction for anticipatory bail depends on where arrest is apprehended, not where the offence was allegedly committed. The High Court treated bail jurisdiction as distinct from jurisdiction to take cognizance and held that nothing in Section 438 confines the power to offences within the court's territorial limits. Concurrent jurisdiction of competent courts in different States was therefore not excluded, and the availability of interim anticipatory bail supported jurisdiction to grant protection for the necessary period. The jurisdiction objection was rejected, and anticipatory bail could be entertained despite the alleged offence arising outside Delhi. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:08:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304699 Section 438 jurisdiction for anticipatory bail depends on where arrest is apprehended, not where the offence was allegedly committed. The High Court treated bail jurisdiction as distinct from jurisdiction to take cognizance and held that nothing in Section 438 confines the power to offences within the court's territorial limits. Concurrent jurisdiction of competent courts in different States was therefore not excluded, and the availability of interim anticipatory bail supported jurisdiction to grant protection for the necessary period. The jurisdiction objection was rejected, and anticipatory bail could be entertained despite the alleged offence arising outside Delhi. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304699