https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439653 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. en-us Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439653 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. Case-Laws GST Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439653