N. D. VENKATESH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Medical Practitioner residing in Bangalore City, has filed this application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) requesting the Court to release him on anticipatory bail.

( 2 ) HIS apprehension is that Cannanore Town Police in Kerala State, having registered a case in their Crime no. 185 of 1983 against him for an offence under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one k. P. B. C. Menon, Branch Manager, state Bank of India, Cannanore, were likely to arrest him and therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail. Along with his application he has produced copies of the complaint and the F. I. R. sent by the police to the jurisdictional magistrate (judicial First Class Magistrate, Cannanore ). The complaint of Mr. Menon is that Dr. Naidu, who had obtained from him a sum of Rs. 25,000 on the assurance that he would secure a house-site to him in Bangalore city, had cheated him in the matter and, therefore, was liable to be proceeded against.

( 3 ) THE learned State Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection to consider the petitioner's claim on merits. According to him, this Court having no jurisdiction over Cannanore Police, it cannot grant anticipatory bail so as to operate on them. He argues, if at all, it is only the jurisdictional Sessions Judge and the High court of Kerala who are competent to to consider the claim of the petitioner in the matter.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a few decisions of this Court (Cr. P. No. 656|82 D. D. 30-8-1982 and Cr. P. No. 324183 28-2-1983), and also that of delhi and Calcutta High Courts, submitted that, since the petitioner is a resident within the jurisdiction of this court and also since he apprehends arrest here this Court does have Jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for.

( 5 ) SUB-SEC. (1) of S. 438 of the code, which enables the Courts to grant anticipatory bail, reads thus:"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest (l) when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High court or the Court of Sessions for a direction under this Section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. "any person apprehending arrest may apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for a direction under that section.

( 6 ) WHILE examining the preliminary objection raised by the learned state Public Prosecutor we have to bear in mind the opening words of subsec. (1) of S. 438. The section provides relief to the person "apprehending anrest". The Court may not have jurisdiction to deal with the offence. But as Observed in Gurubaksh Singh sibbia v. State of Punjab (A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 1632) anticipatory bail order becomes effective "at the very moment of arrest" i. e. the place where the police or the other authority proposing to and rest the person lay their hands on him. As further observed in that case the "direction under S. 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from this touch or confinement. "

( 7 ) S. 48 of the Code, says that "a police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest. Persue such person into any place in India. "

( 8 ) THE question is. cannot a person thus pursued by the police, of another State seek anticipatory bail under 6. 438 in the High Court or the court of Sessions within whose jurisdiction he resides? '

( 9 ) I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned State Public prosecutor that the Court, exercising its powers under S. 438, should be the one having powers to deal with that offence. It is true that Courts take cognizance of offences and not persons. But that is entirely a different matter. And that approach cannot hold good in considering the claim for anticipatory bail of person apprehendin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document