High Courts & Session Courts Can Grant Interim Anticipatory Bail Even If FIR Is Registered In Another State: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that High Courts and Sessions Courts can grant interim anticipatory bail even when the FIR is registered in another state.

The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that ' anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.'

The Court also stressed on the importance of access to justice, and said that, "If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is made solely with reference to the concept of territorial jurisdiction it would be adding a restriction to the exercise of powers under Section 438. This, in our view, would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice. We say so for the reason that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case".

ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee and Senior Counsel Kaustav Paul (as amicus) appeared for the complainant-wife, AAG Dr Manish Singhvi appeared for the State of Rajasthan, Counsel VN Raghupathy appeared for the State of Karnataka, and Counsel Anjana Sharma appeared for the accused-husband.

In this case, the complainant-wife appealed against the orders of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, by which anticipatory bail had been granted to the accused-husband and his family in an FIR registered for dowry harassment, cruelty, and assault.

The Apex Court observed that not only is the adjudicatory forum supposed to be effective in its functioning and just, fair and objective in its approach, but it also must be conveniently approachable and affordable. It was further observed that access to justice would be a constitutional value of any significance and utility only if the delivery of justice to the citizen is speedy, for otherwise, the right to access justice is no more than a hollow slogan of no use or inspiration for the citizen.

The Court also held that if the Parliament intended that the expression ‘the High Court or the Court of Session’ to mean only the Court that takes cognizance of an offence, then the Parliament would have made this abundantly clear. In that context, it was further said that, "The omission of any qualification of the expression ‘the High Court or the Court of Session,’ ought to be constructed in a fashion that furthers the constitutional ideal of safeguarding personal liberty. It would be in furtherance of fostering personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India in entrusting a wider jurisdiction to the Court of Session and the High Court in the grant of anticipatory bail, than in foreclosing the same by restructuring the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail."

Thereafter, the Apex Court clarified that the High Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, and subject to the following conditions:

(i) Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.

(ii) The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation.

(iii) The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Section 438 of CrPC.

(iv) The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be -

a. a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered;

b. the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness;

c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extraterritorial limited anticipatory bail.

The impugned order was set aside, but in the interest of justice, it was directed that no coercive steps may be taken against the accused

Cause Title: Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc.

Click here to read/download the Judgment