JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.829 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police seeks Interstate anticipatory bail.)

1. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 420, 120-B IPC, in Crime No.829 of 2021, on the file of the respondent-Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner, who had been accused of non-bailable offences committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction limit of the State of Tamil Nadu, had approached this Court for Anticipatory Bail, so as to enable him to approach the appropriate Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the main accused and de-facto complainant belong to the same community. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused, have shown fake purchase order for supply of CT cables to Railway worth about Rs.2.28 Crores. Based on that purchase order, they have sought financial help from the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent’s brother had extended the financial help, based on fake purchase order to the tune of Rs.2,62,00,000/-. Later, the 3rd respondent came to know that the purchase order is fake one and therefore, the third respondent lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent-Police on the grounds of cheating and fabrication of records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner’s name is not mentioned in the FIR, he has received the summons from the respondent-Police and hence, he apprehends arrest. He further submits that a marriage is also scheduled to take place in their family and therefore, he seeks for interim anticipatory bail to enable the petitioner to approach the concerned Court and seek the regular Anticipatory Bail. It is also stated that a civil suit is also pending between the parties. He further submitted that this Court, in similar circumstances, has granted interim anticipatory bail to the accused to enable him seek appropriate Bail Orders from the concerned Court.

5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State.

6. The issue as to whether, in respect of the persons who have been accused of a non-bailable offence, committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, and if his arrest is sought within the jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the fact that he is a resident of the place over which this Court can grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P.Shanthi Swaroop v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Asst. Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madras reported in 1992 L.W.(Crl).475. After elaborate discussion, decisions and considering the ratio laid down by the Patna High Court in Syed Safrul Hassan v. State, the Division Bench has passed the following order:-

“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the High Court or the Court of Session has got power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. To grant anticipatory bail irrespective of the locale of the Commission of the offence. In other words, in respect of persons who have been accused of a non-bailable offence committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, if their arrest is sought within the jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the fact that they are residents of the place over which this Court can grant anticipatory bail. However, we wish to observe that while granting anticipatory bail, this Court has to restrict the relief for a limited period and to direct the concerned persons to move the Court which is having jurisdiction over the matter in the meantime and also impose such condition so as to make the petitioner available for interrogation by the concerned police in the meantime. The reference is answered accordingly.”

7. Ther