E-Paper
Top court slams trend of seeking anticipatory bail in another state
In order to avoid abuse of process of the court, the bench said, “By this (order), we imply that the accused cannot travel to any other state only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail.”
The Supreme Court on Monday said that an accused apprehending arrest in a non-bailable offence cannot simply travel to any other state for grant of anticipatory bail as such an order can be passed by a jurisdictional court falling within his place of residence or work for a limited period after hearing the investigating officer or public prosecutor handling the investigation or trial of the case.
A bench headed by justice BV Nagarathna laid down this rule while considering a matrimonial case dispute where a Karnataka civil court granted protection from arrest to the husband and in-laws of a woman who registered a criminal case of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide against them in a police station at Chirawa, Rajasthan.
The court held that a high court or sessions court while granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) need not be the one where the case is registered as grant of anticipatory bail is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 and access to justice under Article 39A.
But to prevent abuse of this provision and “forum shopping” by the accused, the bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said, “It is necessary for the court before which the plea for anticipatory bail is made, to ascertain the territorial connection or proximity between the accused and the territorial jurisdiction of the court which is approached for seeking such a relief. Such a link with the territorial jurisdiction of the court could be by way of place of residence or occupation/work/profession.”
Setting aside the July 7, 2022 anticipatory bail order of the Bengaluru court, the judgment of the court said, “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.” However, the bench ordered interim protection to the accused for four weeks allowing them time to move anticipatory bail plea before the competent court in Rajasthan.
The bench said considering the constitutional imperative of protecting a 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.
At the same time, it added, “We are conscious this may also lead the accused to choose the court of his choice for seeking anticipatory bail. Forum shopping may become the order of the day as the accused would choose the most convenient court for seeking anticipatory bail. This would also make the concept of territorial jurisdiction which is of importance under the CrPC pale into insignificance.”
In order to avoid the abuse of the process of the court by the accused, the bench said, “By this (order), we imply that the accused cannot travel to any other state only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail.”
