S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 envisages the grant of anticipatory bail by any High Court or any Court of Session within the country, irrespective of the locale of the commission of the offence, has come to be the larger question before this Full Bench.

2. The matrix of facts giving rise to the issue deserves only a brief notice. Syed Zafrul Hassan and Prasanta Majumdar, the two petitioners, are employees of the Associated Cement Company Ltd. and claim to be the Dealing Assistant and the Head of the Section respectively in the Branch Office of the said company at Patna. At the instance of M. P. K. Kurup, Executive Engineer, a case under Ss. 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against them has been registered in the Jhinkpani Police Station, District Singhbhum, on the 18th of July, 1985 with regard to the supply of 800 metric tons of cement by the said company to the Government. It is unnecessary to recount the details of the allegations in the first information report, and it suffices that apprehending the arrest in pursuance thereof the petitioners have moved the present criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. At the motion stage itself, the issue came up for consideration that since the commission of the offence was within the district of Singhbhum, the Ranchi Bench of this Court alone would have jurisdiction. However, on behalf of the petitioners the stand taken was that a person apprehending arrest in any part of the country or the State can move any High Court or any Court of Session for anticipatory bail. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madan Mohan Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 BBCJ 648 : (1985 Cri LJ 1754). Expressing some doubt about the correctness of the said view, the learned Judges of the Division Bench referred the matter for an authoritative adjudication by a larger Bench. As this was inevitably likely to take some time, the interim relief of the stay of the arrest of the petitioners was granted for one month and extended thereafter.

4. As before the Division Bench so before us, Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad for the petitioners contended that whenever and wherever any person has the apprehension of arrest, he can invoke the provisions of S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) before any High Court or any Court of Session. According to him, the governing factor therein was the place where the accused may apprehend arrest and not the place of the commission of the offence, or the jurisdiction of the Court of Session or the High Court over the same. It was argued that the provisions of this section were to safeguard the interest of the apprehending accused alone and all considerations whether the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session or of the High Court were totally alien to the issue. Reliance was placed on Madan Mohan Choudharys case (supra) and Bhola Lal V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 Pat LJR 450, B. R. Sinha V/s. The State, 1982 Cri LJ 61 (Cal).

5. The tall and what appears to us as the somewhat doctrinaire stand taken on behalf of the petitioners has been seriously pressed before us and, therefore, may well merit the compliment of a detailed rational refutation. Inevitably some of the contentions must revolve around the language of S. 438. Therefore, the relevant part thereof may be noticed at the very outset for facility of reference : -

"(1) 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 Session 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.

(2) x x

(3) If such person is thereafter "arrested without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at