In whose jurisdiction Anticipatory bail can be granted?

As per me Accused has to proceed for Anticipatory Bail at A district itself.

B District is having no Jurisdiction to Grant Bail for the Crime Registered at A District.

But on reaching A District he will be arrested:

Md. Ahjaz Ahmed is absolutely right.

What about ad interim anticipatory bail granted from different Sate.

Dear Assumi,

Accused can not file a bail petition in a Distict of B due to jurisdiction point of view but he can file bail petition before the conserd high court. Because Sec. 438 Cr.P.C clearly contemplated  that  " When  any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction  under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be relessed on bail ....." Accordingly it is adviseble to file petition in the High Court is wise in your case.

Ramdas Ji,

But most of the High Courts first want to know what happend at Dist & Session Courts, whether accused filed bail application before Dist court or not; If not the bail application at high court not even accepted and registered, then .

Is registration of FIR mandatory before anticipatory bail can be moved?

The words is High court or the Session court in 438 CrPc. Now should we move the Session Court First or the High Court? or we can move simultaneously? In my humble opinion Session Court should be first and then High Court.

As th term OR is used in the section u can make an application for anticipatory bail in district or high court. law doesnt mandate that inorder to knock the door of the high court one shall avail of the remedy in the district court. both the courts do have independent jurisdiction in anticipatory bail matters.

    Malla Ramarao And Ors. vs The State on 3/10/1991

ORDER

   1. This is an application u/S. 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for

   the grant of an anticipatory bail by the accused in Cr. No. 39 of 1991

   to Kottur Police Station, Srikakulam District who were charged for the

   offence u/Ss. 302, 324 read with 34, IPC.

   2. The petitioners unsuccessfully made attempts both before the

   Sessions Court twice and one time in this Court for grant of

   anticipatory bail. After the dismissal of their application before the

   Sessions Court, they moved this Court for the Grant of anticipatory

   bail which met the same fate. Again they tried their luck before the

   Sessions Court but of no avail. For the second time they are before

   this Court seeking anticipatory bail. Their plea is that they have been

   implicated in the case due to malice and enmity, that the Ist

   petitioner is a Branch Post Master and the second petitioner is a sick

   person suffering from isnophilia.

   3. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application

   contending that second application u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. either before this

   Court or before the Sessions Court in connection with the same offence

   on the same grounds is not maintainable.

   4. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the

   petitioner Sri A. Surya Rao is that even if the Sessions Court rejected

   the application for the second time on the same grounds, a second

   application before the High Court is maintainable.

   5. Sub-section (1) of S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads

   thus :

     "Section 438. Direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending

     arrest :

     (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on

     an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may

     apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction

     under this section; and that Court may, if it think fit, direct that

     in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail."

   A close reading of the above sub-section would make it clear that the

   petitioner "may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session" for

   the grant of anticipatory bail. The 'or' a conjunction was used in

   between the two forms available to a person i.e. the High Court and the

   Court of Session. A person can apply for anticipatory bail either to

   the Court of session or in the alternative to the High Court. The word

   'or' has been used in alternative or exclusive sense. This would be

   evident from the use of the words 'that Court may' in the section

   indicating singular number.

   6. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High

   Court in Amiya Kumar v. State of W.B. 1979 Cri LJ 288, rejected the

   application for anticipatory bail for the second time as not

   maintainable after the rejection of the first one by the Court of

   Session.

   7. In the instant case we have to consider a second application either

   before the Sessions Court or before the High Court is maintainable.

   According to S. 438 Cr.P.C. if a person has got any apprehension or

   belief that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a

   non-bailable offence, he may apply either to the High Court or to the

   Court of Session. The moment he filed an application and the same has

   been disposed of either in his favour or against him, indicates that

   the petitioner or petitioners are aware of the accusation that has been

   levelled against them. When he is aware of the accusation levelled

   against him and the Court passed an appropriate order rejecting his

   application, as a dutiful citizen he is bound to surrender before the

   concerned Police. Without surrendering before the Police and escaping

   from being arrested, they cannot be permitted to file an application

   for the second time particularly the conduct that is being exhibited by

   these petitioners. In normal course, when the first application was

   filed we may not accept the contention of the Police that the

   petitioner is absconding and he is evading arrest. But when the second

   application is filed, the contention of the Public Prosecutor that the

   petitioner is absconding has to be accepted.

   8. The plea of the petitioners that they are not absconding they are

   very much available to the Police and every day they are passing

   through the lane in front of the Police Station and they are not being

   arrested by the Police cannot be accepted particularly after the

   rejection of their applications twice by the Court of Session and once

   by this Court.

   9. To be an absconder, in the eye of law it is not necessary that a

   person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides

   himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his

   own home. The conduct of the petitioners from the date of the dismissal

   of the first application till filing of the second application is

   relevant.

   10. If the accused put up a case that there are changed circumstances

   by filing a second application it indicates that they are aware of the

   fact that investigation is going on and they are not available to the

   Police for arrest or absconding and that they are getting information

   through some one else. Such persons are not entitled to take advantage

   of the changed circumstances by filing a second application for

   anticipatory bail which prima facie is barred under the provision of S.

   438 either before the Court of Session or before the High Court, in

   view of the conduct exhibited by them. Therefore, I am firmly of the

   view that a second application for the grant of anticipatory bail

   either before the Court of Session or before the High Court is not

   maintainable u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. and the contention of the learned Public

   Prosecutor must be upheld.

   The application is dismissed.

   11. Application dismissed.

An Anticipatory bail application shall be filed in the district court within whoxe jurisdiction the police station station in which the case was registered lies. If not directly an aticipatory bail petition shall be filed before  the High court because, anticipatory bail has concurrent jurisdiction

Is FIR mandatory before anticipatory bail???

Mr. V. V. Ramdas & Mr. Manu have correctly opined.

fir is not mandatory to apply for anticipatory bail. reasonable apprehension of arrest is sufficient.