R.Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)- The petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed lies beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and the allegation of cruel treatment meted out to his wife is stale. The allegations are all tainted and founded on improbabilities entitling the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
(2.)The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed by the State on the footing that there are prima facie tangible materials against the petitioner disentitling him to an anticipatory bail.
(3.)The petitioner to invigorate his claim for anticipatory bail has made twin submissions. The first of such submissions is that the complaint is not maintainable, as it is struck by the extra territoriality, as the offence complained of did not see the light of the day, at Birbhum but at Dhanbad. The extraterritoriality of the offence knocks out the bold plea of the torture and ill-treatment. The complaint, according to him, is not viable in law. It has been debated at the bar that the Court is denuded of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim dwelling on an offence that took place foreign to the place of marital residence of the aggrieved.
;