IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail may be granted with or without any conditions.

JUDGMENT

B. C. Gadgil, J. - The applicants in both these applications are praying for an anticipatory bail. These applications were initially placed before a learned Single Judge. However, they have now come up before us as the question arose before the learned Single Judge as to whether the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be utilised by this Court when the case or the contemplated criminal proceedings would be in some other State.

2. Though only this aspect in both these applications has been placed before us for our decision we have heard the learned advocates on behalf of both the sides on the merits of the applications and we feel that it would be in the interest of the parties if the applications are decided on merits as well if we come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

3. Before going to the rival contentions of the parties it would be necessary to State few facts which have given rise to there applications. Criminal Application No. 334 of 1985 is in connection with a criminal prosecution for the theft of electric energy. Hastinapur Metals Ltd. is carrying on its business in Sonepat District of Haryana State. Its Head Office is at New Delhi. For their business the Company is consuming electric energy that is supplied by the Electricity Board. The allegation is that the Company has committed theft of the electric energy. The three applicants are the Directors of the said Company. They contend that they are the permanent residents of Bombay and that they apprehend that on the basis of the First Information Report that has been filed at Rai Police Station (in Sonepat District) they would be arrested. Hence, their applications for anticipatory bail.

4. Criminal Application No. 338 of 1985 is in connection with the affairs of Daylight Ceramics (Gujarat) Private Limited having its office at Rajkot. The applicant is said to be the Director of the said Company and a notice has been issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Gujarat State calling upon the applicant and other Directors to show cause as to why appropriate action for non-payment of the Company's contributions of the Provident Fund should not be taken against them. The applicant apprehends that a prosecution for having committed offences under the Provident Fund Act would be filed in Gujarat State and that the applicant would be arrested in such a case. According to him, he is a permanent resident of Bombay. With this apprehension he has prayed for an anticipatory bail.

5. We have already observed that when these applications were before the learned Single Judge there was a question about the maintainability of the applications in this Court as the offences have been committed outside the State of Maharashtra. We have heard the learned advocates for the applicants in both these applications as also the learned Public Prosecutors appearing in both these applications. The learned Public Prosecutors have frankly stated before us that such applications for anticipatory bail would be tenable in this Court even if the offences are said to have been committed outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Of course, we do not propose to decide this question on the basis of the concession made by the Public Prosecutors. The provisions for the grant of anticipatory bail are contained in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An application for such type of bail can be made to the High Court or to the Court of Session whenever a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. Thus, the real cause for making an application under section 438 is the contemplated arrest of a person. If this arrest is likely to be effected within the jurisdiction or this Court we think that the concerned person should have the remedy of applying to this Court for anticipatory bail. This is more so when the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh