GS Paper II

News Excerpt:

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court or High Court would have the power to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail when the FIR has been registered in another state.

About the Priya Indoria v State of Karnataka:

Issues that were resolved:

• The question is whether the High Court or Court of Session can grant anticipatory bail for an FIR registered outside its territorial jurisdiction under Section 438 of the CrPC.
• The question is whether transit anticipatory bail or interim protection, allowing applicants to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC before a competent court, is in line with the administration of criminal justice.

Ruling:

• The SC set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sadhan Chandra Kolay.
• The court emphasised the importance of interpreting Section 438 of the CrPC to protect personal liberty (Article 21) and access to justice.
• The court referred to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors vs State of Punjab case of 1980, based on the eight guidelines on the anticipatory bail that the High Court and Sessions Courts must follow. The court argued that an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of a Court of Session or a High Court to grant interim anticipatory bail for an offence committed outside its territorial confines could lead to an anomalous and unjust consequence for bona fide applicants.
• The court also noted that the expression “anticipatory bail” is not defined in the CrPC but is traceable to Section 438.
• The court viewed that the High Court or Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail as an interim protection under Section 438 of the CrPC, subject to certain conditions.

Conditions laid by the Supreme Court:

• 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 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 on the status of the investigation.
• The jurisdiction in which the cognisance 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 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 cognisance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be -
• 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;
• The medical status/ disability of the person seeking extraterritorial limited anticipatory bail.

Need for transit anticipatory bail:

• The police have the power under the CrPC to pursue an accused in other jurisdictions, and they must secure a transit remand to transport the accused to the registered crime location, as per Article 22.
• This ensures the accused is taken to the registered crime location for production before a competent magistrate.
• Transit anticipatory bail helps to address the complexities of cross-jurisdictional arrest. The affected person thus has a remedy.

Conclusion:

• The Courts must consider bona fide grounds while granting transit anticipatory bail and ensure that no interruption is done to the investigation process by the applicant/accused.
• Finally, the transit anticipatory bail should be granted strictly for a limited period to allow the accused to go to the proper jurisdiction to get the bail.