anticipatory bail in the abovesaid crime as per Annexure-A4 order dated 24.04.2019 rendered by this Court in B.A.No. 2128/2019. It is also submitted by the petitioner's counsel that it is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court that in case an accused person has a reasonable apprehension that his arrest will take place within the territorial limits of a Sessions Court or High Court, then the Sessions court concerned or High Court within whose territorial limits that the accused person may be arrested, will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plea for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. even if the crime has been registered outside the said State, wherein the Sessions court or High Court is situated. It has been held by various Division Bench and Single Bench decisions of this Court in cases as in C.I.Mathew v. Govt. of India [1980 (4) KLT 942], Madhusoodan v. Superintendent of Police [1992 (2) KLT 83] and Samdeep Varghese and anr. v. State of Kerala and others [2010 (2) KHC 881], that a place where a person apprehends arrest is a sure test for determining the territorial jurisdiction of High Court or the Sessions court concerned for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in the grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. and if the applicant/accused can satisfy the court that he has a bonafide apprehension that he will be arrested at a place situated within the territorial limits of the High Court concerned or the Sessions court concerned , then the said High Court or the Sessions court concerned will
