JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Meaningful question springs up for consideration in the instant matter is as to whether the provisions contained in Section 438 Cr.PC. can be utilised when the case of the comtemplated Criminal proceedings would be in some other States ? This question arises in the circumstances set-out below:- 3. Apprehending arrest in a Special Crime Case No. 105/2000 registered at Khandani Virodhi Kaksha, Crime Branch, Mumbai for the offence under Sections 323, 344, 347, 365, 368, 386 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner Rajendra Moondra has moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. along with an affidavit to the effect that since beginning of this month, around December, 2000 he has been continuously receiving messages at Jaipur from his friends and well wishers at Mumbai that the police of Khandani Virodhi Kaksha, Crime Branch, Mumbai is seriously contemplating to come to Jaipur for arresting him in a F.I.R. No. 105/2000. During the last 2-3 days, his family members have noticed on couple occasions, certain strange faces wandering in the vicinity of his residence in Sangram Colony, 'C' Scheme, Jaipur. During 4-5 days, his partner Miss Sudha Sharma and his daughter-in-law Smt. Abha have received blind calls on their home telephone in which the caller was keen to ascertain whereabout of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has strong apprehension at Jaipur to arrest him by Mumbai Police. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the he may be released on interim bail for a fixed period so that he may be approach the competent Court at Mumbai seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.RC. 4. The learned Senior Counsel Shri S.R. Bajwa in support of his contention placed reliance on 1985 Cr.Law Journal R 1887, N.K. Nayar and others v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 5. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor in the matter and also perused the material placed before me. The Division Bench of the Mumbai High Court in N.K. Nayar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , while the powers under Section 438 Cr.RC. granted anticipatory bail for a period of one month so as to enable the applicant in that case to move appropriate court for seeking appropriate orders. 6. In view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, I intend to exercise the powers under Section 438 Cr.PC. , while the powers under Section 438 Cr.RC. granted anticipatory bail for a period of one month so as to enable the applicant in that case to move appropriate court for seeking appropriate orders. 6. In view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, I intend to exercise the powers under Section 438 Cr.PC. by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a period of one month i.e. till the end of January, 7, 2001 so as to enable the petitioner to move appropriate court for seeking appropriate remedy. It is however, made clear that the anticipatory bail granted by this court, no orders on the bail from the appropriate court are obtained. 7. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Shri Rajendra Moondra S/O. Shri Kishan Moondra in Special Crime Case No. 105/2000, in the territory of State of Rajasthan or any other State, the petitioner shall be released on bail upto 7th January, 2001 on executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Arresting Officer in Special Crime Case No. 105/2000 registered at Khandani Virodhi Kaksha, Crime Branch Mumbai on the following conditions:- (1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. *******