In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held that a high court or
sessions court can grant anticipatory bail for a limited period to a person
apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR registered outside their
territorial jurisdiction, saying it was necessary to protect a citizen’s right
to life, personal liberty and dignity.
The top court in its order, having wide ramifications in criminal matters
where accused apprehend arrests in cases lodged in other States, laid down
several conditions for grant of such a relief.
“We are of the view that considering the constitutional imperative of
protecting a citizen’s right to life, personal liberty and dignity, the High
Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form
of an interim protection under the Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of
justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction
of the said court,” said a Bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal
Bhuyan.
At the same time, it said such power to grant extra-territorial
anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling
circumstances.
The verdict came on an appeal of a woman challenging the grant of
anticipatory bail by a Bengaluru local court to her estranged husband and his
family members in connection with a dowry harassment FIR lodged at Chirawa
Police Station at Jhunjhunu district in Rajasthan.
This gave rise to a legal question of whether a sessions court can grant
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
connection with an FIR lodged outside its jurisdiction.
Answering in affirmative, Justice Nagarathna, in her 85-page judgment,
laid down certain conditions for granting such a relief.
“Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the
investigating officer and public prosecutor, who are seized of the FIR shall be
issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the court in an
appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail,”
it said.
The Bench said the order of grant of “limited anticipatory bail” must
record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the
impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the
case may be, on the status of the investigation.
“The jurisdiction in which the cognisance of the offence has been taken
does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of
a State Amendment to Section 438 of CrPC,” it said.
The person, seeking anticipatory bail, must satisfy the court regarding
his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the court which has the
territorial jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence, it said.
The grounds raised by the applicant may be “a reasonable and immediate
threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the
FIR is registered”, it said.
The person apprehending arrest will have to prima facie establish the
violation of the right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness and “the
medical status/ disability of the person”.
Dealing with the facts of the case, the bench took note of the social
reality of “criminal complaints relating to dowry harassment, cruelty and
domestic violence arising out of unsuccessful matrimonial relationships”.
“With the increasing migration of young people for marital and career
prospects, supplemented by the forces of economic liberalisation, a significant
number of couples hail from two different states, with the corollary being that
the matrimonial home of a complainant-wife is located in a different state from
where her parental home is located,” it said.
The judgment said it would be impossible to fully account for all exigent
circumstances in which an order of extra-territorial anticipatory bail may be
imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant.
“We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory
bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only –
which means where denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to
enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a
Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible
prejudice to the applicant,” it said.
The court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial
anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead
for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a
court of competent jurisdiction, it said.
By this judgment, the top court set aside verdicts of the Patna High
Court and the Calcutta High Court “to the extent that they hold that the High
Court does not possess jurisdiction to grant extra-territorial anticipatory
bail that is even a limited or transit anticipatory bail.” The judgement also
answered a query with regard to jurisdiction.
The question was if a person commits an offence in one state and the FIR
is lodged there, can he approach a court at his native place in another state
seeking “transit anticipatory bail for a limited duration”?
“We have held that the accused could approach the competent court in the
State where he is residing or is visiting for a legitimate purpose and seek the
relief of limited transit anticipatory bail although the FIR is not filed in
the territorial jurisdiction of the District or State in which the accused
resides, or is present depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case,”
it held.
PTI
