High Courts, Sessions Court can grant limited pre-arrest bail in FIRs lodged in another state: SC
The News Freedom
www.thenewsfreedom.in
New Delhi, November 20
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday held that considering the constitutional imperative of protecting citizen’s right to life, personal liberty and dignity, 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.
The Supreme Court also stipulated conditions for the transit anticipatory bail. “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, the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court also said that 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. “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,” the Supreme Court further said.
In addition to it, the Supreme Court said that 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 include a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered, the apprehension of violation of the right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness and the medical status, disability of the person seeking extraterritorial limited anticipatory bail,” the Supreme Court added.
“It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in which an order of extraterritorial anticipatory bail may be imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant. We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only which means where denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court further said that the court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
“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, if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme also said that there can also be a case where the accused is facing multiple FIRs for the same offence in several States. “He may seek an interim protection from a particular Sessions Court or the High Court in a State. Does he have to move from State to State for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail or seek multiple pre-arrest bails? We would not attempt to give an answer to such a situation as the facts of the present case do not involve such a situation,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court passed an order acting on an appeal filed by a woman challenging the grant of anticipatory bail by a Bengaluru local court to her estranged husband and his family members in connection with a dowry harassment FIR lodged at Chirawa Police Station at Jhunjhunu district in Rajasthan.