DINESH KUMAR NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S, S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Choudhury, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) This is a petition under section 438, Cr. P. C. wherein the petitioner being apprehensive of arrest in connection with Complaint Case Ho. 51 of 1999 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, Bihar for the alleged offences under sections 405, 409, 420. 120(B), I. P. C., under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 58(A) of the Companies Act, has prayed for anticipatory bail. All the offences alleged excepting the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are non-bailable in nature. Shri Das submits that though the petitioner is in no way connected with the activities of the Company i. e., P. S. Moneycraft and Fintech Limited carrying on business within the territorial limit of Bihar which received the deposits and has issued the disputed cheques, he has been shown as accused in the complaint petition filed before the leathed C. J. M., Ranchi on the basis of which cognizance of the offences has been taken and warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner who resides at Bhubaneswar within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa. Shri Das submits that since the warrant issued by the learned C. J. M. Ranchi has come to the court of Executive Magistrate Bhuhaties-war, Orissa for execution, the petitioner apprehends arrest at any time by the police within the territorial limit of .the State of Orissa. Since there is no specific allegation attributing any role to this petitioner in the complaint petition, it is submitted that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand raised objection on the ground of jurisdiction of this Court to grant anticipatory bail in a case instituted outside the State of Orissa.

(3.) In the above context, it may be stated that as regards grant of anticipatory bail, the place where a person apprehends arrest is the place for determining the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be. The relief in the shape of anticipatory bail may be granted to a petitioner if he satisfies the court that he would be arrested at a place within the territorial limits of a particular court and the apprehension is based on reasonable grounds.