1986 (1) TMI 382 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Interpretation of "the High Court" and "the Court of Session" in Section 438.
3. Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and Courts of Session in criminal matters.
4. Relevance of the accused's residence in determining jurisdiction for anticipatory bail.
5. Applicability of Articles 214 and 225 of the Constitution of India.
6. Impact of anticipatory bail on the investigation of crimes.
7. Precedents and conflicting judicial views on anticipatory bail jurisdiction.
8. Specific jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The primary issue was whether Section 438 allows any High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail irrespective of where the offense was committed. The court concluded that Section 438 does not confer such a broad jurisdiction. Instead, only the High Court or Court of Session having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed can grant anticipatory bail.

2. Interpretation of "the High Court" and "the Court of Session" in Section 438:
The court emphasized that the language of Section 438 uses "the High Court" or "the Court of Session," not "any High Court" or "any Court of Session." This indicates that the legislature intended to limit the jurisdiction to the court having territorial jurisdiction over the offense. The court rejected the argument that the place of apprehension of arrest should determine jurisdiction.

3. Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and Courts of Session in criminal matters:
The court reiterated that territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence. Articles 214 and 225 of the Constitution, along with Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 4(25) of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, reinforce that High Courts and Courts of Session have jurisdiction limited to their respective territories.

4. Relevance of the accused's residence in determining jurisdiction for anticipatory bail:
The court dismissed the argument that the accused's residence should determine jurisdiction for anticipatory bail. It held that the place of residence is irrelevant and impractical for determining jurisdiction, as it could lead to chaotic and conflicting jurisdictions.

5. Applicability of Articles 214 and 225 of the Constitution of India:
The court highlighted that Articles 214 and 225 maintain the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts as it existed before the commencement of the Constitution. This constitutional mandate supports the view that jurisdiction for anticipatory bail is confined to the High Court or Court of Session having jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed.

6. Impact of anticipatory bail on the investigation of crimes:
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail affects the investigation process and should not be granted lightly. It referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, which highlighted the intrusion of anticipatory bail into the investigation sphere and the need for compelling circumstances to grant it.

7. Precedents and conflicting judicial views on anticipatory bail jurisdiction:
The judgment reviewed various conflicting judicial views, including decisions from the Delhi, Calcutta, and Karnataka High Courts, and dissented from them. It overruled the decisions of the Patna High Court in Bhola Lal v. State of Bihar and Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, which had taken a broader view of jurisdiction under Section 438.

8. Specific jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court:
The court concluded that the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising in the districts of Hazaribagh, Giridih, Dhanbad, Ranchi, Palamau, and Singhbhum. Since the offense in question was registered in Singhbhum, the Ranchi Bench alone had jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application.

Conclusion:
The court held that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit the grant of anticipatory bail by any High Court or any Court of Session within the country where the accused may choose to apprehend arrest. Such power vests only in the Court of Session or the High Court having jurisdiction over the locale of the commission of the offense. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to seek their remedy before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court.