Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court has jurisdiction to consider anticipatory bail applications within the territorial limits where the applicant apprehends arrest. The court emphasized that the place where the arrest is threatened should confer jurisdiction for such applications (!) (!) .

2. The court noted that an applicant seeking anticipatory bail must demonstrate a reasonable belief that they may be arrested within its jurisdiction, and that the apprehension is imminent and not merely fanciful (!) (!) .

3. The court found that the first accused, who is residing abroad in Singapore and has not shown any imminent likelihood of arrest within Kerala, does not satisfy the criteria for anticipatory bail in Kerala (!) (!) .

4. Conversely, the 6th accused, who is a permanent resident of Kerala and resides in Cochin, has a reasonable apprehension of arrest within Kerala, given the ongoing investigation and the circumstances of the case (!) (!) .

5. The court observed that the order for anticipatory bail should not be granted if the arrest is based on vague allegations or if the warrant used for arrest is not properly issued according to legal requirements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. It was highlighted that a warrant issued solely to aid investigation, especially if not in proper form or not issued following due legal procedures, may be illegal and cannot be used as a basis for arrest (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasized that the arrest should be justified by reasonable grounds, and that arresting a person on suspicion alone, without proper investigation or evidence, can cause irreparable injury and hardship (!) (!) .

8. The court acknowledged the willingness of the 6th accused to cooperate with the investigation and her readiness to be interrogated, which supports the grant of anticipatory bail (!) (!) .

9. The order granted anticipatory bail to the 6th accused is conditional, including reporting to the Investigating Officer, not influencing witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation, with the order valid only for 30 days or until her arrest, whichever is earlier (!) (!) .

10. The petition for anticipatory bail by the first accused was dismissed as not maintainable, since there was no reasonable apprehension of arrest within Kerala (!) (!) .

11. The court clarified that the order of anticipatory bail would only be effective if the arrest occurs within Kerala (!) .

12. The court also observed that the proper legal procedures, including the form and issuance of warrants, must be followed, and that illegal or improperly issued warrants cannot justify arrest or detention (!) (!) .

In summary, the court granted anticipatory bail to the 6th accused based on her residence and the circumstances of the case, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the first accused due to lack of reasonable apprehension of arrest within Kerala.