2022 (6) TMI 1409 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - FIR registered beyond the jurisdiction of this Court - whether this Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 438 of the Cr. P. C, is vested with jurisdiction to grant bail in a case that has been registered beyond its local limits of jurisdiction? HELD THAT - The above issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Mohan Singh Parihar vs. Commission of Police and Ors. 1982 (11) TMI 184 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT . This Court, after noticing the provisions contained in Section 497-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Cr. P. C, which is in pari materia with Section 438 of the Central Cr. P. C, as also the provisions contained in Section 6 of the J K Cr. P. C, which is in pari materia with Section 6 of the Central Cr. P. C, observed that On the parity of the reasoning, the High Court and a Court of Session of which Section 497-A speak, must also mean the High Court and the Court of Session competent to try the accused seeking enlargement on bail. On the basis of the aforequoted reasoning, the Court came to the conclusion that the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to a person against whom a case has been registered with a police station which is situated outside the local limits of its jurisdiction under the Code. This Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the bail application which relates to an FIR that has been registered beyond the local limits of this Court even though the accused/petitioner may be residing within the jurisdiction of this Court - The petitioners in the instant case are not seeking transit bail but are seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest on a permanent basis, regarding which this Court lacks jurisdiction in view of the ratio laid down in the aforequoted judgment. The petition is held to be not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of High Court to grant anticipatory bail in a case registered beyond its local limits.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case registered in Madhya Pradesh, beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court. The key issue was whether the High Court, under Section 438 of the Cr. P. C, had the jurisdiction to grant bail in a case registered outside its local limits. The Court referred to the case of Mohan Singh Parihar vs. Commission of Police and Ors. 1982 CriLJ 1182, which highlighted the territorial limitations of different courts and the High Court's jurisdiction under the Jammu and Kashmir Cr. P. C. The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail for cases registered outside its territorial limits, as it lacks the authority to enforce such orders in areas beyond its jurisdiction. This restriction was further supported by the interpretation of Sections 496, 497, and 167 of the Cr. P. C, which define the scope of courts empowered to grant bail and try cases. Consequently, the Court concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the bail application for an FIR registered outside its local limits, even if the accused resided within its jurisdiction.

In summary, the judgment clarified that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a case registered beyond its local limits. The decision was based on the territorial constraints outlined in the Jammu and Kashmir Cr. P. C and the limited enforcement powers of the High Court outside its jurisdiction. The interpretation of relevant sections of the Cr. P. C further supported the conclusion that only courts within the territorial limits could grant bail and try cases effectively. As a result, the petition seeking anticipatory bail for an FIR registered in Madhya Pradesh was deemed not maintainable and dismissed by the Court.