1998 (7) TMI 723 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court or Court of Sessions to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC.
2. Territorial jurisdiction concerning the place of commission of the offense.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 438 Cr.PC.
4. Conflict of judgments between different High Courts on the issue of anticipatory bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of High Court or Court of Sessions to Grant Anticipatory Bail:
The primary issue was whether Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) empowers any High Court or Court of Sessions within the country to grant anticipatory bail irrespective of the place of commission of the offense. The court examined the statutory provisions and previous judgments to determine the extent of jurisdiction. It was concluded that the power to grant anticipatory bail is limited to the High Court or Court of Sessions having jurisdiction over the area where the offense was committed.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction Concerning the Place of Commission of the Offense:
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction for trial and inquiry by criminal courts should be based on the locale of the commission of the crime and not the residence of the accused. It was held that the court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed should entertain applications for anticipatory bail. The court referred to Section 177 Cr.PC, which states that the ordinary place of inquiry and trial is the court within whose local jurisdiction the offense was committed.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 438 Cr.PC:
Section 438 Cr.PC allows a person to apply for anticipatory bail if they have reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense. The court examined the legislative intent and the necessity for such a provision, noting that it aims to protect individuals from false and vexatious accusations. The court also discussed the amendments to Section 438, which mandate the disposal of anticipatory bail applications within thirty days and the requirement for the accused to appear before the court having jurisdiction over the place of the offense.

4. Conflict of Judgments Between Different High Courts:
The court addressed the conflicting judgments from various High Courts on the issue of anticipatory bail. It noted that some courts, like the Patna High Court, held that anticipatory bail could only be granted by the court having jurisdiction over the place of the offense, while others, like the Delhi and Kerala High Courts, allowed anticipatory bail applications to be entertained by the court where the accused apprehended arrest. The majority judgment of the Calcutta High Court aligned with the Patna High Court's view, emphasizing territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The majority of the Special Bench concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction for anticipatory bail by any High Court or Court of Sessions is limited to the extent of granting bail for the transitional period. The court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed should entertain such applications. The minority view, which allowed for anticipatory bail applications to be filed in the jurisdiction where the accused apprehended arrest, was not accepted. All applications for anticipatory bail in cases registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court were to be considered in light of this judgment.