9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain applications for anticipatory bail when the offences are committed outside the State of Maharashtra. 2. Granting of anticipatory bail to the applicants in connection with criminal prosecutions for theft of electric energy and nonpayment of Provident Fund contributions. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the issue of jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain applications for anticipatory bail when the offences were committed outside Maharashtra. The Court referred to Section 438 of the Cr. P.C., stating that anticipatory bail can be sought when a person has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The Court held that if the arrest is likely to be within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, the concerned person can apply for anticipatory bail. The Court cited precedents from other High Courts supporting this view, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is effective at the moment of arrest. Therefore, the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such applications even if the offences were committed outside Maharashtra. 2. The judgment also addressed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants in two separate cases. In the first case, involving theft of electric energy by a company in Haryana, the three directors, who were permanent residents of Bombay, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest based on the FIR filed. In the second case, a director of a company in Gujarat facing prosecution for nonpayment of Provident Fund contributions also sought anticipatory bail as a permanent resident of Bombay. The Court acknowledged the difficulty in examining the detailed merits of the prosecutions, especially when they would be lodged in states outside Maharashtra. Considering this, the Court granted interim bail for a month to both applicants with the condition that the bail would stand vacated if certain conditions were not fulfilled by a specified date. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the discretion of the High Court to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail. 3. The judgment highlighted the importance of imposing conditions on anticipatory bail orders and the discretion of the Court in granting such relief. It referenced specific sections of the Cr. P.C. allowing the Court to include conditions in the bail order based on the facts of the case. The Court also cited the Supreme Court's stance on the necessity of imposing conditions while granting anticipatory bail. The judgment clarified that there are no inherent restrictions on anticipatory bail under Section 438, and the Court can exercise discretionary power to impose restrictions and conditions as deemed necessary based on the circumstances of each case. 4. In conclusion, the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants for a period of one month, allowing them time to seek appropriate orders from the courts where the cases were likely to be filed. The Court specified conditions for the bail, including the automatic vacation of bail if no orders were obtained by a certain date. The applicants were directed to execute personal recognizance bonds and sureties in case of arrest within the territory of Maharashtra. The judgment emphasized the discretionary power of the Court in granting anticipatory bail and the importance of imposing suitable conditions in such orders.
|
