Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner is before this court seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest by the respondent - Police, for offences punishable under Sections 409, 414, 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) . In a case in CC No.376/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Court, Thiruvellore, Tamil Nadu, a non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner and other accused, who are said to be public servants. It is the petitioner's case that he is not a public servant and therefore, the question of offences having been committed by the petitioner under the above provisions, is remote and he would be put to great hardship, as he has undergone a open heart surgery in the recent past, to be put through the proceedings of arrest and his production before the appropriate court and therefore, seeks anticipatory bail in order to enable him to overcome the situation. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would raise a serious objection that admittedly, the petitioner is sought to be arrested in a pending case before a court in Tamil Nadu and since this court would have no jurisdiction over that court or the investigating authorities, it would be improper to consider the petitioner's case for anticipatory bail. Hence, without anything more, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the petition be rejected, leaving the petitioner to his remedies before some other forum. 4. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on a decision of this court in the case of L.R.Naidu vs. State of Karnataka, 1984 Cri.LJ 475, where in a similar situation, this court, relying on the decisions in B.R.Sinha vs. State, 1982 Cri.LJ 61; Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1981 Cr.LJ NOC 59 and Gurubaksh Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 , has pointed out that it would not be impermissible for a court of one State to grant anticipatory bail, if the petitioner resides within its jurisdiction, in respect of apprehended arrest in a case pending in some other State, without the jurisdiction of the court and seeks to place reliance on the same. It is to be seen that the Supreme Court, while dealing with a prayer for anticipatory bail , in Gurubaksh Singh, supra, has held as follows:-"In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail." And the Calcutta High Court has held as follows in identical circumstances as arising in the case on hand:-"Considering the provisions laid down in S. 438 of the Code and the principles of law with regard to anticipatory bail explained by their Lordship in Gurubaksh Singh's case (1982 Cr. L. J., 1125) (S.C.) and also considering the view taken by atleast three Division Benches to the case referred to above, we are of the opinion that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain application for anticipatory bail of a petitioner who resides within the jurisdiction of the Court, though he apprehends arrest in connection with a case which has been started outside the jurisdiction of this Court". And therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail for a limited period. Accordingly, in the event of the Police arresting the petitioner in CC No.376/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Court, Thiruvellore, Tamil Nadu, they are directed to release him on bail, on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Police. The petitioner shall appear before the appropriate court in Tamil Nadu within ten days from the date of his arrest by the concerned Police. In case he makes any application, within the time referred to hereinabove, the court shall consider such application and this order will be in force till such time that court passes an appropriate order on his application. The petition is allowed in terms as above.