INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday said high courts or sessions courts are not barred by jurisdiction for
entertaining anticipatory bail pleas and held that they are empowered to grant transit bail to an accused even though the offence was
committed in another jurisdiction or state
transit anticipatory bail which would protect an accused from arrest till he moves the court of territorial jurisdiction for the alleged
offence.It is on the lines of transit remand that police are obligated to secure for taking an accused from the place of arrest to the place
where the crime is registered.Explaining the core aspects of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code pertaining to grant of anticipatory
bail, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the fundamental right to personal liberty and access to justice, which are
constitutionally recognised and statutorily preserved, would be undermined if the section is given a restrictive interpretation to allow
only the jurisdictional high court or sessions court to grant pre-arrest bail
The court said the limited interpretation would hamper the right of a person who is living in another state
the high court or sessions court could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under Section 438 of CrPC in the
court or high court to grant interim anticipatory bail for an offence committed outside the territorial confines of a high court or sessions
court may lead to an anomalous and unjust consequence for bona fide applicants who may be victims of wrongful, mala fide or politically
the investigating officer and public prosecutor concerned and and that the applicant must satisfy the court regarding his inability to seek
anticipatory bail from the court having territorial jurisdiction
It said the court must pass a reasoned order while granting relief and the interim protection would be extended only till the accused
seeking anticipatory bail
Forum shopping may become the order of the day as the accused would choose the most convenient court for seeking anticipatory bail
This would also make the concept of territorial jurisdiction pale into insignificance
Therefore, in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the court as well as law by the accused, it is necessary for the court before which
the plea for anticipatory bail is made, to ascertain the territorial connection or proximity between the accused and the territorial
By this, we imply that the accused cannot travel to any other state only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail
The reason as to why he is seeking such bail from a court within whose territorial jurisdiction FIR has not been filed must be made clear
and explicit to such a court
Also there must be a reason to believe an apprehension of imminent arrest for a non-bailable offence made out by the accused for approaching
the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR is not lodged or the inability to approach immediately the court where the FIR is
takes cognisance of an offence, it would have made this abundantly clear
It said the omission of any such qualification ought to be constructed in a fashion that furthers the constitutional ideal of safeguarding
