ORDER M.R. Verma, J. (Oral): The bail petitioner apprehends her arrest in case FIR No. 182/2000 under Section 366 IPC allegedly registered against her and her husband at Police Station, Parsad Nagar, Delhi. It is alleged that the said case is false and has been registered at the behest of her father and brothers who are influential persons and not happy with her husband. 2. A preliminary question as to the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail in a case which has been registered outside its jurisdiction arises for determination at the first instance and the other question relates to the merits as to whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail or not. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. 4. Section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which entitles an accused person apprehending his arrest in a non bailable offence to apply for bail and empowers the High Court and the Court of Sessions to direct his release on bail, reads as follows: "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest (l)When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail." 5. It is clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that it entitles any person apprehending his arrest for the commission of a non-bailable offence to apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for grant of anticipatory bail and such Court, if thinks fit may direct that in the event of his arrest, such person be released on bail. Thus, the cause for making an application for grant of anticipatory bail will arise to a person where he is residing at the time of such apprehension, irrespective of the fact that the case in which the arrest is apprehended is instituted within the jurisdiction of the Court to which the application is made or outside its jurisdiction, for the reason that it is the apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence that invites the exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case, it is held that jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 438 vests only in the High Court or Court of Sessions within whose jurisdiction the non-bailable offence has been committed or which has the jurisdiction over such area, shall virtually defeat the very purpose of the section. 6. In case Dr. L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnalaka, 1984 CrLLJ. 757 Karnataka High Court, N.K. Nayar & Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & On., 1985 Cri. L. J. 1887 Bombay High Court and Jodha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1994(2) Crimes 296 Rajasthan High Court, a similar view has been taken by the respective High Courts by holding that the Court within whose jurisdiction a person apprehends his arrest for a non- bailable offence, has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail notwithstanding the fact that the offence for which he apprehends arrest was committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the. High Court or the Court of Sessions to which he has applied for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. In view of the above, this Court has the power and jurisdiction to entertain the present application notwithstanding the fact that the case against the bail petitioner had been registered in Delhi, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It may, however, be observed that in the absence of the relevant record, the Court which has no jurisdiction over the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed or the case has been registered, may not go into the merits of the case and may not pass an absolute order granting the bail to the bail petitioner, as the grant of an absolute order of anticipatory bail may depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. In the instant case, the bail applicant is apprehending her arrest in a case under Section 366 IPC which is a non-bailable offence. 8. In the instant case, the bail applicant is apprehending her arrest in a case under Section 366 IPC which is a non-bailable offence. As per the averments made in the application, the bail petitioner, in the event of her arrest in the said offence, is prima-facie entitled to be released on anticipatory bail subject to examination of the merits of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice, she should be directed to be released on bail only for a specified period enabling her to approach the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. 9. As a result, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the bail petitioner in the aforesaid case within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, i.e. on or before 8th of July, 2000, she be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the concerned Judicial Magistrate. This order shall cease to be operative after 8th day of July, 2000. The petitioner, if so advised, may move the appropriate Court for seeking appropriate orders in the meanwhile. Application is accordingly disposed of. Appeal allowed