In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court reshapes the landscape of anticipatory bail, asserting that both High Courts and Sessions Courts possess the authority to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail, even when the First Information Report (FIR) originates from a different state.
The Court unequivocally overturned the judgments of Patna High Court and Calcutta High Court, challenging the notion that High Courts lack the jurisdiction to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail, even in limited or transit cases.
Outlined Conditions for Limited Anticipatory Bail:
- Notice to Key Players: Prior to issuing limited anticipatory bail, the court mandates issuing notices to the investigating officer and public prosecutor involved in the FIR on the first day of the hearing. The court maintains discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail when deemed appropriate.
- Detailed Reasoning: Any order granting limited anticipatory bail must provide comprehensive reasons explaining the applicant’s fear of inter-state arrest and the potential impact of such protection on the ongoing investigation.
- State Amendment Clarification: State amendments to Section 438 of CrPC do not exclude offenses from the scope of anticipatory bail. The jurisdiction where the offense is cognizable does not impede anticipatory bail.
- Grounds for Plea: Applicants must convince the court of their inability to seek relief from the court with territorial jurisdiction. Acceptable grounds include immediate threats to life, violations of personal liberty, arbitrary actions, or medical conditions/disabilities.
- Exceptional Circumstances: The power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail is reserved for exceptional and compelling situations. The court emphasizes that this authority should only be exercised when the denial of such relief would result in irreparable harm to the applicant.
Territorial Nexus Requirement:
The Court underscores the potential abuse of the legal process and stresses the need for a territorial connection or proximity between the accused and the court’s jurisdiction where anticipatory bail is sought. The court aims to prevent forum shopping and preserve the significance of territorial jurisdiction under CrPC.
The Bench’s Deliberations:
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, heard a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the judgment of a Sessions Judge in Bangalore. The petitioner contested the extraterritorial bail granted to the accused husband, seeking redress from the Apex Court.
Tracing the Etymology of ‘Transit’:
The Court commenced by tracing the origins of the term ‘transit,’ revealing its Latin root ‘transitus,’ symbolizing passage from one place to another.
Challenges in Cross-Jurisdictional Arrests: The Necessity of Transit Remand
The Court acknowledges the complexities in cases where arrests extend beyond the jurisdiction where the offense is registered. The police, under the CrPC, has the authority to pursue an accused in other jurisdictions but must secure a transit remand upon arrest.
Legal Innovation: ‘Transit Anticipatory Bail’ as a Remedial Measure
The judgment introduces ‘transit anticipatory bail’ as a legal innovation to address the intricacies arising from cross-jurisdictional arrests, asserting that an affected person cannot be left without a remedy.
The case under consideration is titled “Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka.”
