(1.) In this reference, a Division Bench of this court wanted specific observation as to whether section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as code) empowers to grant anticipatory bail by any High Court or Court of Sessions within the country irrespective of the place of commission of an offence. Subsequently, a batch of application under section 438 of the Code had been filed for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, all these matters were taken up together for consideration since they raised a common question of law looking to different views taken by this High Court in two Division Bench Judgments and also by a Full Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court. Therefore, they referred to a larger Bench since the view of the Hon'ble Judges was not uniform.
(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to the application for anticipatory bail in C.R.M. 152 of 1998 deserves brief narration.
(3.) The petitioner herein is a business man in an Iron Factory having its branch outside this state and he has been dealing with business as Iron Merchant. On 12th September, 1997 at about 2-30 P.M. in the afternoon, few persons visited the residence of the petitioner while he was away in his business activities, disclosing themselves being Police Official and they required the petitioner's attendance in connection with a Criminal Case. Subsequently, the petitioner ascertained the reasons as to why those persons required his presence. Thereupon the petitioner went to Allahabad and got a copy of FIR lodged by one B.C. Kohli, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Allahabad Branch with the assistance of a local advocate. It has been, inter alia, stated that a Bank Draft which was presented for encashment at the said branch was forged and that is why, the case being C.R.M. No. 429/97 under sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered in the Civil Line Police Station. Two persons in the said case were taken into custody. From the narration of the FIR, it is somehow not spelt-out that the present petitioner was included in the FIR. Therefore, his presence in the above case seems to be unwarranted, uncalled for and illegal. The petitioner herein has, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.