TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1989 at about 3.00 p.m. some unfortunate violent incident took place between Janta Dal and the Congress workers and it appears there was a cross firing in which Shri Sanjay Singh received bullet injuries, F.I.Rs. were lodged by both the parties and cross cases were registered with the police station Munshi Ganj under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C. being case Crime No. 182 of 1989 and 182-A of 1989. 6. F.I.R. Crime No. 182 of 1989 was registered at the instance of Shri Ashish Shukla at about 3.45 p.m. on 22-11-1989 at P.S. Munshi Ganj in which allegation was that Shri Sanjay Singh fired with his rifle as a result of which persons, namely - Majoj Kumar, Satya Narayan Yadav, Sitla Prasad etc. were injured. 7. F.I.R. Crime No. 182-A of 1989 was registered at about 6.45 a.m. on 23-11-1989 at the instance of Shri Jai Parkash Singh H. C. 24 according to which Shri Sanjay Singh sustained injuries. However, the assailants were unknown. In both the F.I.Rs. the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. 8. After investigation, first a charge sheet was filed in Court of CJM Sultanpur on 16-2-1990 in case Crime No. 182-A of 1989 under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, 302, 504, I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Court and the petitioner, at that stage, as well was yet to be challenged, the respondents, under undue pressure from Shri Sanjay Singh got non-bailable warrant issued on 14-5-1990 from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur against the petitioner which was endorsed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for execution. After the said warrant of arrest was brought to Delhi and again endorsed in favor of various Delhi Police Functionaries like Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police and finally to Inspector of Police of P.S. Mehrauli who was authorised to execute the warrant and consequently to effect the arrest of the petitioner in Delhi within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. Since the petitioner was about to be arrested and deprived of his liberty, he was constrained to file the present civil writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner in case Crime No. 182-A/89 P.S. Munshi Ganj, Dist. Sultanpur, U.P. In this writ petition the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the proceedings in Case Crime No. 182-A/89 and the warrant of arrest issued by C.J.M. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In that context this Court observed that there is nothing in S. 438 which restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session. One need not mix up the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence with that of granting of bails. Bails are against arrest and detention. Therefore, an appropriate Court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. If the Court of session or the High Court has the jurisdiction to grant interim bail, then the power to grant full anticipatory bail will emanate from the same jurisdiction. Con-current jurisdiction in courts situated in different States is not outside the scope of the Cr.P.C. It is not possible to divide the jurisdiction under S. 438, Cr.P.C. into an ad interim and complete, but it is permissible if it is so expedient or desirable, for any of the courts competent to take cognizance of and to try an offence and the courts competent to grant bails or grant anticipatory bail for a specified period only, and thereby this Court rejected the contention of the State of Punjab with regard to jurisdiction of the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny High Court or any Court of Session within the country where the accused may choose to apprehend arrest. Such a power vests only in the Court of Session or the High Court having jurisdiction over the locale of the commission of the offence of which the person is accused. Question of residence of accused is irrelevant in such a case. This judgment, in fact, was heavily relied upon by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and it was contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the reasoning adopted by him was the same as was adopted in that case for the proposition that the Jurisdiction can be exercised only by the High Court or Court of Session where the offence is alleged to have been committed. 20. In the light of what is discussed above, the consensus view of various High Courts that emerges is that the High Court or Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the person has a reasonable apprehension that he would be arrested shall have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. We agree and endorse this consensus view and more particularly the view expressed by our High Court in Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At the cost of repetition no restriction whatsoever has been placed for exercise of power by the High Court or the court of Session for the grant of anticipatory bail within whose territorial jurisdiction if a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with non-bailable offence. The purpose for which this beneficial provision of anticipatory bail was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been referred to by the Supreme Court in, para 8 of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980CriLJ1125 of that judgment is reproduced below :- No one can accuse the police of possessing a healing touch nor indeed does anyone have misgivings in regard to constraints consequent upon confinement in police custody. But, society has come to accept and acquiesce in all that follows upon a police arrest with a certain amount of sang-froid, in so far as the ordinary rule of criminal investigation is concerned. It is the normal day-to-day business of the police to investigate into charges brought before them and, broadly and generally, they have nothing to gain, not favors at any rate, by subjecting ordinary criminals to needless harassment. But the cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion to enlarge a person on anticipatory bail within whose jurisdiction a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence. 23. Viewed from different angle, under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court has been given still wider powers. Under Art. 226(2) it has been provided that the power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such persons is not within those territories. In the present case, the facts are undisputed that on the basis of a non-bailable warrant, for the arrest of the petitioner issued by C.J.M. Sultanpur the petitioner is sought to be arrested in Delhi by execution of the said warrants by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to whom the warrant was endorsed by the C.J.M. Sultanpur. In other words, the petitioner is sought to be deprived of his personal liberty and threatened ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 307, I.P.C. As already stated, the prayer made in this writ petition for quashing of the proceedings has neither been pressed nor argued on merits and in fact have been dropped by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has also not addressed this Court on merits. In the face of this there is no question of starting any parallel or of pending proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. In such a situation, there is no question of any parallel proceedings. This contention, Therefore, must also fail. 27. What should be the consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail which has again been the subject-matter in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case 1980CriLJ1125 (supra). In that case, in substance, it has been observed that grant of anticipatory bail should be left to the discretion of the High Court or the Court of Session as no fixed principles can be laid down for the grant of such bail as two cases are never similar and the Cr.P.C. cannot provide for all the eventualities. Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the Court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.M. Sultanpur and endorsed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for execution of the warrant and Police Station Mehrauli was, about to execute the warrant and thereby arrest the petitioner; that the investigation in this case was already over even at the time when the warrant was issued on 14-5-1990 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the Court of C.J.M. Sultanpur on 21-5-1990. Already 3 charge sheets on 16-2-1990, 6-4-1990 and 7-5-1990 have been presented before C.J.M. Sultanpur and in these charge sheets, the petitioner has not been challenged. These three charge sheets have been filed against 19 accused. All of them have already been enlarged on bail by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. There is no question now of any interference in the investigation of police. The petitioner's name does not find place in the F.I.R. The petitioner is an M.P. and has deep roots in the society and there is no likelihood of being absconding or tampering with the witnesses are all residents of U.P. In case he is released-on bail it can safely be said that he will appear in Court as and when required and he will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oots in the community which would deter him from fleeing from the process of the Court. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be fully met if the petitioner is released on the personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- in the event of his arrest. 33. The next question that may arise is as to whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail for a limited period till he approaches the Magistrate of Uttar Pradesh who has also jurisdiction in the matter. In this connection we may again refer to Gurbaksh Singh's case 1980CriLJ1125 (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that the normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time for the grant of anticipatory bail. In the present case, the investigation is complete, charge-sheets have been presented before the Court and only trial has to be held. The grant of bail is only to ensure that the petitioner attends the trial regularly and, Therefore, there is no question of interference in the investigation. Furthermore, this Court has taken the view with which we are respectfully in agreement that the concurrent jurisdiction has been conferred on courts under Cr.P.C. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
