9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to grant anticipatory bail in a case registered outside its jurisdiction
Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code due to a criminal case registered in Central Crime Branch, Madras, against them and others. The petitioners had obtained bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, with a condition to confirm bail within a month. The question arose whether the High Court could grant anticipatory bail in a case registered in Madras. 2. The case involved allegations related to the transportation and delivery of tractors to a dealer without proper documentation. The petitioners argued for anticipatory bail citing precedents like Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and B. R. Sinha v. The State. However, a detailed examination of the legal provisions under Sections 78, 80, and 81 of the Code was conducted to determine the jurisdiction of the Court to grant anticipatory bail in cases registered outside its territorial limits. 3. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 438(1) of the Code, emphasizing that the term "High Court" refers to the High Court of the State where the offence is committed. The jurisdiction of a Court is tied to the offence, not the offender's residence. The Court clarified that the critical factor is whether the offence falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session where the bail application is made. 4. Precedents like Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab were examined to understand the circumstances under which anticipatory bail can be granted. The Court highlighted that the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to grant bail in cases registered in other States was not explicitly addressed in previous judgments. The practical difficulties arising from entertaining such applications without sufficient material were also noted. 5. Referring to a previous case dismissed by the Court due to lack of jurisdiction when the offence was registered in another State, the judgment concluded that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case registered in Madras. Therefore, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed based on the lack of jurisdiction. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's interpretation of legal provisions, precedents, and the jurisdictional limitations concerning the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction.
|
