THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT OR COURT OF SESSIONS TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF A BAIL FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND IT CANNOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRANSGRESS INTO THE LIMITS OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTION OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT OR THE COURT OF SESSIONS WHICH IS NOT UNDER ITS SUPERINTENDENCE AND CONTROL, WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION ALLEGED OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

( 1 ) IN this reference, a Division Bench of this court wanted specific observation as to whether section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as code) empowers to grant anticipatory bail by any High Court or Court of Sessions within the country irrespective of the place of commission of an offence. Subsequently, a batch of application under section 438 of the Code had been filed for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, all these matters were taken up together for consideration since they raised a common question of law looking to different views taken by this High Court in two Division Bench Judgments and also by a Full Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court. Therefore, they referred to a larger Bench since the view of the Hon'ble Judges was not uniform.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix giving rise to the application for anticipatory bail in C. R. M. 152 of 1998 deserves brief narration.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is a business man in an Iron Factory having its branch outside this state and he has been dealing with business as Iron Merchant. On 12th September, 1997 at about 2-30 P. M. in the afternoon, few persons visited the residence of the petitioner while he was away in his business activities, disclosing themselves being Police Official and they required the petitioner's attendance in connection with a Criminal Case. Subsequently, the petitioner ascertained the reasons as to why those persons required his presence. Thereupon the petitioner went to Allahabad and got a copy of FIR lodged by one B. C. Kohli, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Allahabad Branch with the assistance of a local advocate. It has been, inter alia, stated that a Bank Draft which was presented for encashment at the said branch was forged and that is why, the case being C. R. M. No. 429/97 under sections 420/467/468/471/120b of the Indian Penal Code was registered in the Civil Line Police Station. Two persons in the said case were taken into custody. From the narration of the FIR, it is somehow not spelt-out that the present petitioner was included in the FIR. Therefore, his presence in the above case seems to be unwarranted, uncalled for and illegal. The petitioner herein has, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

( 4 ) THE reference made by a Division Bench of this court was however, placed before a Three Judges' Bench but it seems that they were not unanimous in their opinion and they requested the Hon'ble The Chief Justice to be placed before still a larger Bench. That is how, the matter has appeared before this Bench.

( 5 ) MR. Susanta Banerjee with Mr. D. K. Singh has argued at length on behalf of the petitioner. Since one set of argument will cover the case of other petitioners, it was deemed unnecessary to ask the other learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners to advance their arguments on the same questions. It has been contended with much emphasis by Mr. Banerjee that it shall not be legitimate to place restrictions in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of anticipatory bail in connection with a case started in a court outside the jurisdiction of this court is concerned. It has been vehemently argued that sections 70, 78, 80 and 81 of the Code confers the power of a court to release on bail of an accused who has been arrested in connection with a case outside jurisdiction of this court. If such application could be entertained for bail and in appropriate case, the court can pass an order of release of an arrested person on bail, there is no earthly reason why appropriated orders on an application for anticipatory bail cannot be passed. While granting such bail it is required only to find out whether the applicant has any reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The ground of apprehension must be based on reasonable and plausible causes. It may be kept in mind that while considering for