Has the High Court powers to grant anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction ? This, in short, is the question that arises for consideration in these two applications.

2. The Calcutta High Court has in B. R. Sinha v. State 1982 Cri LJ 61 taken the view that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the person resides is competent to grant anticipatory bail, even though the offence is alleged to be committed outside its jurisdiction. The Karnataka High Court in L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka 1984 Cri LJ 757 has followed the Calcutta view. The Delhi High Court in two decisions, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Cri LJ 1174 and Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1981 Cri LJ NOC 159 holds that when offences are alleged to be committed in two States, the High Courts in both the States have the necessary power to grant anticipatory bail. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab 1984 Cri LJ 714 expressly dissented from the Calcutta view and held that as bail is in respect of an offence, only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed has jurisdiction under S. 438, Cri P.C. T