The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail of a petitioner who resides within the jurisdiction of the Court, even if the alleged offence was committed outside its jurisdiction.

N. C. Mukherji, J. :- These three applications for anticipatory bail were taken up together for hearing as the same point of law is involved in all these three cases. At the outset, it may be said that all these applications are in connection with cases which have been started in the Courts outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the State by the learned Public Prosecutor that this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications as the cases have been started in the Courts outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. With regard to the merits, the learned Public Prosecutor states that besides the copies of the applications which have been served on him he has no other materials before him and as such he is very much handicapped in making his submissions with regard to the merits of the cases. Mr. Dutta who appears in the case of Binod Ranian Sinha and in the case of Gurdev Singh and others submits that S.438 of the Cr. P.C. has not, in any way, restricted the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain applications in matters where criminal cases have been instituted against the petitioners in Courts outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Dutta contends that Ss.78, 80 and 81 confer power on a Court to release on bail an accused who has been arrested in connection with a case outside the jurisdiction of that Court. If such Courts can entertain applications for bail and in proper cases can release an arrested person on bail, there is absolutely no reason why appropriate orders on an application for anticipatory bail cannot be made. Mr. Dutta very much relies on the principles of law enunciated by their Lordships with regard to anticipatory bail in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980 Cri LJ 1125). Mr. Dutta with much emphasis contends that their Lordships have not found any restriction in S.438 which debars this Court from entertaining an application for anticipatory bail in connection with a case started in a Court outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest. While granting such bail the Court is required to see whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. It has been held in the Case of Gurbaksh Singh that discretion has been left completely with the High Court or the Court of Session as these are superior Courts. Of course, error, if any, committed by these Courts is liable to be corrected. The words "reason to believe" has been explained by their Lordships as the 'belief' that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. In this connection, it has been held that if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether the case has been made out for granting such relief. Mr. Dutta in support of his contention that this Court is quite within the jurisdiction to entertain the present applications submits that in a number of cases this Court from time to time has entertained search applications and has granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Dutta first refers to us the decision in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2680 of 1975 (Binode Kr. Chameria v. State of West Bengal). In this case, on behalf of the learned D. L. R. an objection was taken that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a case which arises outside the jurisdiction. In the case before their Lordships, the case was of Katihar Police station. Their Lordships P.C. Borooah and H.N. Sen, JJ. held "According to us, 'High Court' may mean the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed or within whose jurisdiction the petitioners who apprehend almost, reside. In this particular case, the present petitioners are residing within the jurisdiction and also have thei