N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Mrs. Neela J. Shah, apprehending her arrest in C. R. No. 69 of 1997 in C. B. C. I. D. , Mumbai, in State of Maharashtra for offences under S. 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A), 370 and 34 of I. P. C. , has approached this Court seeking direction under S. 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the Senior Police Inspector, C. B. C. I. D. to enlarge her on bail in event of arrest. ( 2 ) THE say of the petitioner is that a complaint has been filed on 11-11-1997 by one Suhas Shridhar Patha, Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Ornate Group of Companies, alleging that the husband of the accused in connivance with her, has misappropriated and diverted large amount belonging to the Company. Some more allegations with respect to the misappropriation of huge amount has been made therein. The petitioners husband was arrested by the Sr. Police Inspector, C. B. C. I. D. and has been remanded to the police custody. She is in Ahmedabad for attending some religious ceremony at her mothers place. She apprehends that she may also be arrested at Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) BEFORE entering into the merits of the case, the short question arises for consideration is :"whether the High Court can grant Anticipatory Bail in respect of an offence committed or registered outside the territorial jurisdiction". The learned Advocate for the petitioner was not in a position to show law as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application under s. 438 of Cr. P. C. However, the learned A. P. P. , fairly stated that this Court has power to extend protection under S. 438 for a limited period. The learned A. P. P. , however, submitted that recently the Apex Court in the case, popularly known as assam Tata Tea case, has deprecated the practice of granting anticipatory bail by the High Courts having no territorial jurisdiction. Both the learned Advocate and the learned A. P. P. , were not in a position to immediately cite the relevant case law on the point, but there being consensus on the point, a direction was given not to arrest the petitioner for a period of 15 days, i. e. , upto 2-12-1997 for the reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons are now recorded in the second session. ( 4 ) THERE appears to be diversion of opinion on the moot question among the various High Courts. The High Court of Calcutta in 1982 Cri. LJ 61 (B. R. Singh v. State), Delhi High Court in 1980 Cri. LJ 1174 (Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab), high Court of Karnataka in 1984 Cri. LJ 757 (Dr. L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka), and this Court in 1991 (1) GLH (UJ-9) 14 (Santoshbhai Gunvantrai Kamdar v. State of Rajasthan), have answered the question in affirmative whereas, the Full Bench of Patna High Court in 1986 0 Crlj 605 (Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State), Punjab and haryana High Court in 1984 0 Crlj 714 (Ravinder Mohan Bakhshi v. State of punjab), Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 1983 0 Crlj 1182 , (Mohan Singh Parihar v. Commi. of Police), and Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1990 Cri. LJ. 2055 (Pradeep kumar Soni v. State of M. P.) have answered the question in negative, only the High court within whose jurisdiction offence is committed and not where the offender resides or apprehends his arrest, can grant anticipatory bail. ( 5 ) THE Full Bench of Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State, reported in 1986 0 Crlj 605 observed that whenever in statute a reference is made to "the High Court" or "the Court of Sessions" or that of "the Magistrate, it is inherent in such language that it is a Court having territorial jurisdiction over the offence. This inherent concept of the Court having jurisdiction over a specific territory and not beyond it, is indeed essential for the very maintenance of the comity of the Courts. The concept of territoriality is inherent in the system and the more so in the realm of criminal jurisprudence. The Full Bench, reading the provisions of Art. 214 of the Constitution of India and S. 3 (25) of the General Clauses Act held that "the word High Court or the court of Sessions" employed in S. 438 of the Cr. P. C. , mean such Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction over the area where a non-bailable offence arises or is made out. P. C. , mean such Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction over the area where a non-bailable offence arises or is made out. The Court rejecting the contention that apprehension of the arrest arises where the man is or in any case where he is permanently resident and that would confer jurisdiction on the High Court or the Court of Sessions, said :"the locale of the accused has no relevance. The inherent limitation of territorial jurisdiction cannot be overridden by any high-flown and doctrinaire considerations. "the Court further observed thus -"the residence question herein would be totally irrelevant, it is indeed too slippery a test. Domicile and residence are unruly horses and these cannot be easily controlled or tethered. "the Court also observed that it is not for the accused person to select jurisdiction for anticipatory bail by being at any place where he may pretend to apprehend his arrest. The Apex Court in the case of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in air 1985 SC 969 gave caution to the Court exercising powers under S. 438 to be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power which are discretionary in nature and which are being often misused. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in pradeep Kumar Soni v. State of M. P. , reported in 1990 0 Crlj 2055 , referring the decision of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632 held that -"anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal process closely linked with an offence or crime. This being so, while interpreting the provisions of S. 438 of Cr. P. C. , in respect of venue of jurisdiction of the Court, provisions of Chapter XIII of Cr. P. C. , cannot be lost sight of, which particularly deals about the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in enquiry and trial. "an identical view has been taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the cases referred to above. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the High Court of Calcutta in the case of B. R. Singh v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1982 Cri. LJ 61 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. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the High Court of Calcutta in the case of B. R. Singh v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1982 Cri. LJ 61 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. "a similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court as well as the High Court of Bombay and High Court of Karnataka. This Court in Santoshbhai Gunvantrai v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1991 (1) GLH (UJ-9) 14 has taken the same view. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, now there is an indication of the view of the Apex Court from the judgment in the case of State of Assam v. R. K. Krishna Kumar , reported in 1997 8 JT 650 (8) SC 650. In the said case, the accused persons were suspected to have given aid to militant groups which have been banned under the provisions of the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Assam police were wanting to interrogate all the suspected persons in connection with investigation of the cases for the said crimes. The accused persons approached Bombay High Court for anticipatory bail and the Court directed the appellants to release them on bail. The order of the bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court by the State of Assam. It was contended that the Court of Sessions and the High Court of Guwahati only have the jurisdiction to entertain the applications for anticipatory bail in respect of the activities alleged against the respondents vis-a-vis the two banned organisations because all such crimes were committed within the territorial limits of the State of assam. The Apex Court did not consider it necessary to decide whether the Bombay high Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. However, the Court held that -"the question of granting anticipatory bail to any person who is allegedly connected with the offences in question must for all practical purposes be considered by the High court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities should have been perpetrated". (Emphasis supplied) the Apex Court having observed so, transferred the Anticipatory Bail applications from the Bombay High Court to the Guwahati High Court. (Emphasis supplied) the Apex Court having observed so, transferred the Anticipatory Bail applications from the Bombay High Court to the Guwahati High Court. ( 8 ) CONSIDERATION of an application under S. 438 requires an urgency but it cannot be given just for asking. The Court is required to look into the accusation and the evidence in support thereof without loss of time. But if the place where the investigation is actually pending is in a different State at a far distance, it would not be possible for the Court to pass the requisite urgent order after effective application of its mind to the accusation and the evidence in support thereof. In such circumstances, there are chances of misuse of provisions of S. 438. There are instances where parties have abused the provisions under S. 438 by obtaining anticipatory bail from the Courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has not been committed. However, it cannot be denied that if an urgent order is not immediately passed by the Court, whose territorial jurisdiction within which he apprehends arrest, a citizen may be denied of statutory remedy under S. 438. In view of this the only balanced view which can be taken is that the Court of Sessions or the High Court within whose jurisdiction one ordinarily resides, may apply for anticipatory bail and the same may be entertained by the said Court only with a view to provide an immediate relief so as to enable him to approach the Court of Sessions or the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence alleged to have been committed. Thus, an application under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. , should be finally decided only by the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged offence has been committed. The Court entertaining application for anticipatory bail at the first instance which does not have the territorial jurisdiction can give protection only for a brief period on adequate condition with a view to enable the person apprehending arrest to approach the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have been committed. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid, this Misc. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid, this Misc. Criminal Application is allowed and the order passed in the first session is slightly modified and it is directed that the petitioner, in the event of her arrest in connection with C. R. No. I-69 of 1997 with c. B. C. I. D. , Mumbai, shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The petitioner may approach the appropriate Court in the State of Maharashtra within 15 days from today. Life of the order is only upto 2-12-1997. During this period, the petitioner will not interfere with the investigation and will not leave the Country without prior permission of this Court as long as this order remains in force. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .