9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to grant anticipatory bail when the offense is registered in another state
Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Medical Practitioner residing in Bangalore City, filed an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail as he was apprehensive of being arrested by the Cannanore Town Police in Kerala State for an offense under Section 420 of the Penal Code based on a complaint by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India. 2. The State Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court did not have jurisdiction over the police in Cannanore and only the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge and the High Court of Kerala could consider the petitioner's claim for anticipatory bail. 3. The petitioner's counsel relied on previous decisions and argued that since the petitioner resided within the jurisdiction of the High Court and anticipated arrest there, the High Court had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. 4. The Court examined Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for anticipatory bail when a person has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense. The Court noted that the relief is for the person "apprehending arrest," regardless of the jurisdiction of the Court over the offense. 5. Referring to the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail becomes effective at the moment of arrest, where the person is apprehended, irrespective of the jurisdiction of the arresting authority. 6. The Court considered Section 48 of the Code, which allows a police officer to pursue and arrest a person in any place in India, and questioned whether a person pursued by police from another state could seek anticipatory bail in the High Court or Court of Session where they reside. 7. The Court disagreed with the State Public Prosecutor's contention that the Court granting anticipatory bail should have jurisdiction over the offense, emphasizing that the provision is intended to provide conditional immunity from arrest and should be considered in favor of the citizen seeking relief. 8. Citing the views of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court, the Court concluded that the High Court where the petitioner resides has jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail, even if the offense was registered outside its jurisdiction. 9. The Court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, considering the hardship the petitioner, a Medical Practitioner, would face if arrested by the Cannanore police and directing him to approach the appropriate Court in Kerala State within a specified time frame.
|
