Pradeep Raja v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr

1. The prayer in the present petitions is grant ofanticipatory bail to the petitioners so that the petitioners can be released immediately On arrest in complaint dated 8*^ August, 2016 or in the alternative transit bail to the petitioners.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu had on 10^^ August, 2016 informed that on the complaint dated August,2016,copy whereofis annexed at pages 14 to 16 ofthe paper-book, FIR No.5/2016 under Sections 294(b)/323/344/354A/506(l) IPG and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 has been registered at PS AWPS-Pudukottai District Thoothuloidi, Tamil Nadu on 9^*^ August,2016. The matter was adjourned for today as learned BAILAPPLN.1625/2016,1626/2016& 1627/2016 Page2of[9] Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu' sought time to address arguments on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petitions and distinguish the decision ofthe Division Bench ofthis Courtreported as 1990 (2)ILR(Delhi)203 Capt. Satish KumarSharma v^. DelhiAdministration & Ors.,

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu submits that in some ofthe decisions including the decision ofthe Division Bench ofthis Court in Capt. Satish Kumar (Supra) the jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail is not only with the Court under whose jurisdiction the FIR is registered but also where the accused apprehends arrest. However,the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1998(1) see 397 State ofAssam cS: Anr. vs. Dr. Broj'en Gosol & Ors kept open the question oflaw whether the Bombay High Court hadjurisdiction to entertain the applications for grant ofanticipatory bail. Reliance is also placed on the decision ofthis Courtreported asILR(2012)III Delhi 729Sumit Tandon vs. CBI.

4. In the case ofSumit Tandon (Supra)the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein, as noted in para-2 of the judgment was that the Courts at Delhi alone hadjurisdiction to try the offence and thus the Special Judge erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application for want of territorial jurisdiction. This Court while dealing with Section 4(2)ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Actin Sumit Tandon(supra)held: "7. It would be thus evident that in the present case, the misappropriation, embezzlement and the offence under Section 13PC Act were committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The offence having been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in terms ofSection 4(2)ofthe PC Act, the BAIL APPLN 1625/2016,1626/2016& 1627/2016 Page3of[9] Special Judge, Ghaziabad at Uttar Pradesh is competent to try the same and the learned Special Judge, Delhi has committed no error in dismissing the application of the Petitioner for anticipatory bail for want of territorial jurisdiction."

5. The issue whether the Court under whose jurisdiction an accused apprehends arrest has territorialjurisdiction to entertain the anticipatoiy bail application did not arise for consideration in Sumit Tandon's case.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision ofState ofAssam & Anr. vs. Dr. Broien Gosol(supra) was dealing with a decision of the Bombay High Court wherein anticipatory bail was granted without notice to the State of Assam and its Director General of Police who filed the Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.It was held:

8. Various arguments have been raised by Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in challenge of the impugned orders. Learned counsel appearingfor the respondents, while arguing in reply to the appellants' contention did not dispute that Government of Assam or the Director General ofPolice of the State of Assam were not heard, in spite ofthey being madeparties in each ofthe applicationsfor anticipatory bail.

9. According to Shri Tulsi, only the Courts ofSession in Assam and High Court of Guwahati have jurisdiction to entertain the applicationsfor anticipatory bail in respect of the activities alleged against the respondents vis-a-vis the two banned organizations because all such crimes were committed within the territoriallimits ofthe State ofAssam.

10. We do not think it necessary to decide whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the respondents. All the same, the question ofgranting anticipatoiy bail to anyperson who is BAILAPPLN.1625/2016,1626/2016& 1627/2016 Page4of[9] allegedly connected with the offences in question mustfor all practical purposes be considered by the High Court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities could have been perpetrated. In view of the conceded position that appellants were not heard by the High Court we set aside the impugned orders on that ground alone. The applications are to be disposed ofafter hearing the appellants also. For thatpurpose we order that the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the respondents would stand transferred to the High Court of Guwahati where those applications would be heard by a Division Bench ofthat High Court and appropriate orders bepassed thereon. We request the ChiefJustice ofthe High Court ofGuwahati to allot these cases to a Division Bench to hear the applications,preferably on 4-11-1997.

7. The Division Bench ofthis Court in Capt.Satish Kumar(supra)while noting the various earlier decisions held:

13. At the vejy outset Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned counselfor respondents 2 and 3 vehemently submitted that this Court has no territorialjurisdiction to entertain this petition as, according to him the cognizable offence is alleged to have been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh and such an offence can ordinarily be enquired into by the Court in whosejurisdiction the offence has been committed. The jurisdiction with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, can only be exercised by the Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh havingjurisdiction in the matter.

14. A similar question arose before,this Court in Pritam Singh V. State of Punjab 19(1981) DLT 300 where a cognizable offence was alleged to have been committed in the State of Punjab whereas the anticipatory bail was appliedfor before the Delhi High Court as the accused had reasonable apprehension ofarrest in Delhi. In that context this Court observed that there is nothing in S. 438which BAILAPPLN.1625/2016,1626/2016& 1627/2016 Page5of[9] restricts thejurisdiction ofthe High Court or the Court of Session. One need not mix up the jurisdiction relating to cognizance ofan offence with thatofgranting ofbails. Bails are against arrest and detention. Therefore, an appropriate Court within whosejurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also havejurisdiction to grant bail to theperson concerned.Ifthe Courtofsession or the High Court has thejurisdiction to grant interim bail, then the power to grantfull 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 notpossible to divide thejurisdiction under

15. In B. R. Sinha v. The State (1982 Crl.L.J. 61)(2) the Division Bench ofthe Calcutta High Court also expressed the same view and observed that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an applicationfor anticipatojy bail ofa petitioner who i-esides within thejurisdiction ofHigh Court, though he apprehends arrest in connection with a case, which has beeii started outside thejwdsdiction ofsuch Court.

16. This question also came upfor consideratioii befoi'e the Kaimataka High Court in Dr. L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka 1984 CriLJ757(3)wherein the Karnataka High Court expj-essed similar views that S. 438provides reliefto person apprehending ari'est. A beneficial provision like BAILAPPLN.1625/2016,1626/2016&1627/2016 Page6of[9]