..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2865 OF 2008 1. Ashish Srivastav, 2. Parmatma Prasad, & 3. Mrs.Asha Prasad. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. .... Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 25th August, 2008 DATE : 25th August, 2008 DATE : 25th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The learned Advocate for the applicants states that they are apprehending arrest through Samata Nagar police station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai in connection with C.R. No.62 of 2008 registered with Mahila Police Thana, Jahangirbad, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The said case is under Section 498A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. In support of the contention that though the ..2.. case is registered in Madhya Pradesh, this Court can consider the application for anticipatory bail, the learned Advocate for the applicants has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.K.Nayar and others Vs. N.K.Nayar and others Vs. N.K.Nayar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra, reported in 1985 Cri.L.J. 1985 Cri.L.J. 1985 Cri.L.J. 1887 1887 1887. In the said case, it is observed as under : "Thus, the real cause for making an application under S.438 is the contemplated arrest of a person. If this arrest is likely to be effected within the jurisdiction of this Court, we think that the concerned person should have the remedy of applying to this Court for anticipatory bail. This is more so when the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980 Cri LJ 1125), has observed in para 6 as follows :- "The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the ..3.. custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest." Thus an order of anticipatory bail would have a relevancy to the moment of arrest of the concerned person. Consequently this Court would have jurisdiction if a person is likely to be arrested at a place within the jurisdiction of this Court. We may with advantage refer to a few decisions of the other High Courts which have taken a similar view. For example, Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr.L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka reported in 1984 CriLJ 757, and the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.R.Sinha v. State reported in 1982 CriLJ61, have taken a view similar to the one which we have taken. There is also a decision of the Delhi High Court on the same lines. It would thus be clear that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain both the applications even if the offences are said to have been committed outside the State of Maharashtra." ..4.. 4. At this stage, the learned advocate has prayed for a limited relief i.e. the applicants may be protected for four weeks till they approach the concerned Court in Madhya Pradesh. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant said prayer. 5. The applicants are granted four weeks time to approach to the concerned Court. In the meantime, interim protection in respect of arrest is granted to the applicants. In the event of arrest, the applicants to be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount. It is made clear that this relief is being granted only for a limited period of four weeks from today. 6. Application is disposed of accordingly. [Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.]