JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking an interim direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. until the petitioner approaches the Bombay High Court for a regular direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice was issued to the State of Maharashtra and the same has been served. Subsequently the State of Rajasthan was also added as a party. Notice was also issued to the State of Rajasthan. 3. None appears for the State of Maharashtra. However, Mr. Purohit appears for the State of Rajasthan. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing persecution at the hands of the complainant and he is likely to be harassed in a manner which would not give him any chance of approaching the Bombay High Court conveniently for getting a direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. The case of the petitioner is that various High Court have granted such interim direction that until the petitioners approach the concerned High Court they may not be arrested. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the powers of the court under Section 78 Cr.P.C. and submits that as and when a warrant is executed outside the local Jurisdiction of the court issuing warrant, the concerned Magistrate has a power to enlarge the person on bail. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor on the contrary asserted that the petitioner has not appeared before the Bombay Court pursuance to the summons and bailable warrant and, therefore, he is facing a warrant of arrest. In this view of the matter, no indulgence should be granted to him. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. This court is not inclined to grant any such direction in favour of the petitioner, which should be absolute. However, to permit the petitioner to take steps before the Bombay High Court a limited protection is considered appropriate for a brief period. 11. The Gujarat High Court in Neela J. Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 1998(2) Crimes 261 has considered the question and I am in agreement with the view expressed by Honble Gujarat High Court in Neela J. Shah (supra) wherein it has been observed as under : "Consideration of an application under Section 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 actually pending is in a 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 of chances of misuse of provisions of provisions of Section 438 there are instances where parties have abused the provisions under Section 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 Section 438. In view of this 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 Section 438 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 apprehending arrest to approach the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence alleged to have been committed." 12. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued by the Bombay Court, the petitioner shall be released on temporary bail upto 15th January, 2001 on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. During the mean-time, the petitioner may approach the Bombay High Court and seek appropriate relief. This period upto 15th January, 2001 is granted considering the fact that the Bombay High Court will be closed for Christmas Holidays. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. During the mean-time, the petitioner may approach the Bombay High Court and seek appropriate relief. This period upto 15th January, 2001 is granted considering the fact that the Bombay High Court will be closed for Christmas Holidays. Life of the order is only upto 15th January, 2001.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent and this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed as indicated above.Bail application allowed. *******