9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of anticipatory bail order by the appellants. 2. Jurisdiction of Bombay High Court to entertain applications for anticipatory bail. 3. Lack of hearing for the Government of Assam and Director General of Police. 4. Transfer of applications for anticipatory bail to the High Court of Guwahati. 5. Maintenance of status quo till the High Court of Guwahati passes appropriate orders. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of violation of an anticipatory bail order by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the respondent was arrested, but disputed the violation of the Bombay High Court's direction. The Court held that if the respondent wished to challenge this, he could do so through the appropriate forum. Since the respondent was already under arrest, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed. 2. The Court examined the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain applications for anticipatory bail. The respondents, officers of a company suspected of aiding banned militant groups, had been granted bail by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court without giving the appellants a chance to be heard. The appellants argued that only the Courts of Session in Assam or the High Court of Guwahati had jurisdiction due to the crimes being committed within Assam's territorial limits. The Supreme Court did not conclusively decide on the jurisdiction issue but transferred the applications to the High Court of Guwahati for a fair hearing. 3. The lack of hearing for the Government of Assam and the Director General of Police was highlighted. The Court noted that they were not heard despite being parties in the applications for anticipatory bail. This lack of opportunity for the appellants to present their case led to the impugned orders being set aside, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing for all parties involved. 4. The Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the applications for anticipatory bail to the High Court of Guwahati. The Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati was directed to hear the applications and pass appropriate orders after giving all parties a fair opportunity to present their arguments. This transfer aimed to ensure a just and unbiased consideration of the bail applications in light of the jurisdictional concerns raised. 5. To maintain status quo and avoid conflicting decisions, the Court directed that all future petitions for anticipatory bail related to activities within the territorial limits of the Guwahati High Court should be heard only by the same Division Bench. It further prohibited any other court from entertaining such applications, ensuring consistency and coherence in the adjudication of similar matters. The Court also instructed the Registry to promptly transfer the applications from the Bombay High Court to the High Court of Guwahati for timely consideration.
|
