( 1 ) THIS is a petition under S. 438 Criminal P. C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in he event of petitioner's arrest for offence punishable under S. 376 Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ).

( 2 ) HIS case is that though he is a permanent resident of Jabalpur but at the relevant time was serving as Assistant Surgeon in Bhusawal Hospital, district Jalgaon (Maharashtra State), where case under S. 376 IPC is registered against him.

( 3 ) THE applicant moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur who rejected the same, against which this petition is filed.

( 4 ) BEFORE entering upon merits of the case the short question arises in this petition"whether a High Court can grant anticipatory Bail in respect of an offence committed or registered outside its territorial jurisdiction'"

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri H. S. Dubey appearing for the applicant contended that in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 438 Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge or the High Court can grant bail for offence committed or registered in one State i. e. in Maharashtra in the present case and arrest likely to be made in another State i. e. Madhya Pradesh, the High Court in later state has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S. 438 Cr. P. C. In support of his contention learned counsel cited numerous decisions at the bar.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that in B. R. Singh v. State of West Bengal 1982 Cri LJ 61 the Calcutta High Court ruled that :"it is true that a court takes cognizance of an offence but in an application for bail or anticipatory bail, the court is concerned with the petitioner. In our view if the petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of a particular Court his application is certainly entertainable by that Court. "similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Cri LJ 1174 holding that"the petitioner apprehending his arrest at Delhi, prima facic, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to grant him not only interim bail but to confirm the same within the purview of S. 438 Cr. P. C though the offence was committed in the State of Punjab, but the petitioner residing in Delhi. The conclusion is based on apprehension of arrest at Delhi. "likewise in Dr. L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka 1984 Cri LJ 757 Karnataka High Court followed the Calcutta and Delhi view. Bombay High Court in N. K. Nair v. State of Maharashtra 1985 Cri LJ 1887 following the Karnataka and Calcutta view held that"if the arrest is likely to be effected within jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the person apprehending arrest has the remedy of applying to the court even if the offence might have been committed in some other State. "

( 7 ) HOWEVER, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab, 1984 Cri LJ 714 dissenting from Calcutta and Delhi view ruled that"bail in respect of an offence, only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed has jurisdiction under S. 438, Cr. P. C. "jammu and Kashmir High Court in Mohan Singh v. Commander of Police, New Delhi, 1983 Cri LJ 1182 dissenting from Calcutta view ruled that"anticipatory bail only could be entertained in respect of the offence committed within the area but not when the of render apprehends his arrest or resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. "

( 8 ) HAVING gone through the decisions referred to above, with great respect to the learned Judges, I find myself unable to reconcile with the reasonings arrived at by the Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and Karnataka High Court, and agreeing with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir High Courts, I would like to give my own reasonings.

( 9 ) TO begin with, I do not see any ambiguity in formation of the provisions of S. 438, Cr. P. C. calling any judicial probe for elasticity resolving venue of jurisdiction. In this context the legal position as to power of the Court to interpret the st