9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for anticipatory bail when offence committed in one state and arrest apprehended in another state. Analysis: The judgment dealt with an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the applicant was alleged to have committed an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. The applicant, a resident of Nagpur, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Nagpur. The applicant contended that he should be granted anticipatory bail by the Bombay High Court based on previous legal decisions allowing High Courts to grant bail if the offence is committed within their territorial jurisdiction. However, the learned A.P.P. opposed the application, pointing out that the applicant had previously moved an application for anticipatory bail before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge in Bilaspur, which was rejected. The court considered the jurisdictional aspect of granting anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that both the High Court and Sessions Court have the power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was clarified that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed or where arrest is apprehended can grant anticipatory bail. The applicant had chosen to move the 5th Additional Sessions Judge in Bilaspur for anticipatory bail, which was denied. Therefore, the court held that once the applicant had opted to seek anticipatory bail from the court where the offence was alleged to have been committed and was unsuccessful, he could only approach the High Court of that state. The court stressed the importance of judicial propriety and consistency in such matters to maintain the integrity of the legal system. The applicant's counsel argued for interim anticipatory bail to enable moving the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but the court rejected the submission, concluding that the application was not maintainable. As a result, the criminal application was dismissed by the court. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to the chosen forum for seeking anticipatory bail and the importance of judicial consistency in such matters to uphold legal principles and propriety.
|
