TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he court of competent jurisdiction is where the offence has been committed. As such that court generally entertain application for relief of bail etc. There has always been divergent view of different High Courts on the question of entertaining the anticipatory bail application within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the offence has not been committed. Section 438 being a special provision for protecting a person apprehending his arrest, such provision cannot be restricted in every possible situation to file the application only within that court - Kolkata High Court in B.R. SINHA AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE [ 1981 (7) TMI 249 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has taken the view that High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction person resides is competent to grant anticipatory bail, even if offence is alleged to have been committed outside its jurisdiction. Similarly, that judgment was relied upon by Karnataka High Court in L.R. NAIDU VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA [ 1983 (10) TMI 295 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . In the facts of the present case no doubt the corporate office of MEPL is at Noida and the investigation has been initiated by DGGI Zonal unit Jaipur but fact remains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipatory bail to Yogeshwar Singh who is stated to be Director/ Sales head of MEPL, has noted in para 11 of the order that in view of ratio laid down by Delhi High Court in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma s case ILR 1990 Delhi 203, that if the applicant has apprehension of being arrested, he can approach the court of law where he has the apprehension. With that logic ld. ASJ concluded that the court at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the present matter at Delhi for relief of anticipatory bail. Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for DGGI while relying upon different judgments Syed Zafrul Hassan and Anr. vs. State AIR 1986 Pat 194, Sailesh Jaiswal vs. State of West Bengal Ors. 1998 SCC OnLine Cal 215, Nasir Ahmad Wani and Ors. vs. Police Station Neemuch and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine J K 452, Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 305, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694, Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 235, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat ors. (2016) 1 SCC 152, Dr.Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Anita Agarwal and Ors. 2020 SCC OnLIne SC 1031, P.V. Rama Reddy vs. Union of India 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence allegedly committed. No denial to the observation given by Hon ble Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan case (supra), however such decision came in peculiar facts of that case. There cannot be any denial to the general legal proposition that in view of the provisions of section 177 to 189 falling in Chapter VIII of Cr.PC, generally the court of competent jurisdiction is where the offence has been committed. As such that court generally entertain application for relief of bail etc. However in certain exceptional circumstance does not prohibit under law that anticipatory bail can be entertained by a court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence might not have been committed. In my considered view question of entertaining application for anticipatory bail judiciously cannot be limited to the court of territorial jurisdiction because in certain situations the place where accused resides or apprehends his arrest can be from far off from the place where the matter is being investigated. There has always been divergent view of different High Courts on the question of entertaining the anticipatory bail application within the territorial jurisdiction of the court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prehends his arrest to entertain his bail can grant transit anticipatory bail. Similarly in Hanipreet Insan vs. State (Bail Appl. No.198/2017 decided on 26.09.2017 ) in para 7 to 9 Hon ble High Court reiterated the legal proposition as discussed above and stated that in order to strike a balance and for enabling the accused to join the investigation, can protect him with transit anticipatory bail. Reference can also be given to judgment of Allahabad High Court in Anita Garg ors. vs. State AIR Online 2022 432. Thus from the above discussion of case law even if the court within whose territorial jurisdiction no offence has been committed, can still entertain the bail application atleast for transit anticipatory bail where the accused resides within the jurisdiction of that court or apprehends for his arrest. In the facts of the present case no doubt the corporate office of MEPL is at Noida and the investigation has been initiated by DGGI Zonal unit Jaipur but fact remains that applicant Prashant Kumar Singh also operates through MEPL in Marketing Office of Delhi. Therefore it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that Delhi court has no jurisdiction at all. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
