- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties.
(2.) IN this matter, in view of the peculiar circumstances that the offence is registered at Aurangabad, whereas the petitioners are residing at Hyderabad, Advocate Shri. Deshmukh was invited to argue the aspect of territorial jurisdiction to pass an order of anticipatory bail. Shri. Deshmukh has relied upon the precedent laid down in some judicial pronouncements. In AIR 1998 SC 144 (State of Assam Vs. R. K. Krishna Kumar), for an offence registered at Guwahati, the petitioners had filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court. While directing the transfer of anticipatory bail applications to Guwahati High Court, to be heard by a Division Bench of that High Court, it was observed by the Honourable Apex Court, "we do not think it necessary to decide whether Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the respondents. All the same, the question of granting anticipatory bail to any person who is allegedly connected with the offences in question must for all practical purposes be considered by the High Court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities should have been perpetrated. . . . "Secondly, Shri. Deshmukh also referred to a Full Bench decision of Patna High Court reported at 1986 Cr. L. J. 605 (Syed Zafrul Hassan Vs. State ). In this matter, the petitioners were residents of Patna and the offence in connection with which they apprehended arrest was registered in Jinkpani Police Station, District Singhbhoom, which was within the territorial jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench. The issue raised for consideration was, since commission of offence was within District of Singhbhoom, Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court alone would have jurisdiction to deal with the application for anticipatory bail. The issue was referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench recorded its view as follows :- "Section 438 of the Code does not permit the grant of anticipatory bail by any High Court or any Court of Session within the country where the accused may choose to apprehend arrest. Such a power vests only in the Court of Session or the High Court having jurisdiction over the locale of the commission of the offence of which the person is accused. Question of residence of accused is irrelevant in such a case." Shri. Deshmukh has also referred to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported at 1990 Cr. L. J. 2055 (Dr. Prakash Kumar Vs. State of M. P. ). In that matter, the petitioner claimed his permanent residence to be at Jabalpur, although at the relevant time he was serving as Assistant Surgaon in Bhusaval Hospital, District Jalgaon and where a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The application for anticipatory bail was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, who rejected the same and therefore, Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was approached. While dealing with the issue, whether High Court can grant anticipatory bail in respect of an offence committed or registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, it was observed by the learned Single Judge: "This being so, while interpreting the provisions of S. 438, Criminal P. C. in respect of venue of jurisdiction of the Court, provisions of Chapter XIII Cr. P. C. cannot be lost sight of, which particularly deals about the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in enquiry and trial. Therefore, no room for doubt is left in arriving at the conclusion that jurisdiction of a Criminal Court, may be for a trial or for considering bail matter under Sec. 439 or 438 Cr. P. C. arises with reference to the offence and not the place where the accused apprehends his arrest, or resides." Since the law report indicates that the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court had taken a view dissenting from view taken by the Bombay High Court in 1985 Cr. L. J. 1387 (N. K. Nayar Vs. State) observations of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the said case are also referred to. While the applications for anticipatory bail were before the Single Judge, a question about the maintainability was raised as the offences were committed outside the State of Maharashtra. Before proceeding to decide the applications on merits, the Division Bench observed. "the real cause for making an application under S. 438 is the contemplated arrest of person. If this arrest is likely to be effected within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the concerned person has the remedy of applying to that High Court for anticipatory bail. . . . " As rightly pointed out by Shri. Deshmukh, the observations of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court although indicate that the place of residence of applicant, which presumably is the place where he apprehends arrest, can confer jurisdiction upon the High Court, within whose territory the place is situated; it does not observe that the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is registered will not have jurisdiction or the issue of maintainability of applications for anticipatory bail is referable only to the place of residence or place of apprehended arrest. Lastly, Shri. Deshmukh referred to the judgment of the P & H High court reported in 1984 Cr. L. J. 714 (Ravindra Mohan Vs. State of Punjab ). Learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is of the view that where the criminal case is registered against the person in the State of Madras, the High Court of P & H has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the said person. The view of P & H being directly in conflict with the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, will have to be ignored. Considering the view as taken in all the cases referred above, it appears that the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is registered certainly has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail. In the light of Division Bench view of Bombay High Court such application can also be entertained by a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant resides and therefore, apprehends arrest. Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar (Supra) have not expressed any views on this aspect. However, as a measure of precaution, such latter court "within whose jurisdiction only arrest is apprehended but offence is not registered" may limit its order by certain time limit, thereby granting limited protection to the applicant and providing him an opportunity to approach the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is registered.
(3.) THE problem arises when the applicant residing beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court approaches the High Court directly, because the offence is registered within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. Anticipatory bail, if granted, is required to be given effect beyond the territorial jurisdiction. However, when an offence is registered, the investigating officer has liberty and power to chase and trace the offender beyond the territorial limits of his police station and beyond the territorial limits of the Court, within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed and registered. THE order of anticipatory bail is required to be given effect by a direction to such an investigating officer, who is likely to effect the arrest of the offender and therefore, there is no reason why the Court should not be able to issue such direction, although its effect is likely to reach beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Coming to the facts of present case, according to prosecution story, an order purporting to be the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dt. 13/1/1991 (which was II Saturday and therefore holiday) is alleged to have been forged by the accused persons and brought at Aurangabad for being used before some quasi judicial authorities. Taking into consideration, the nature of offence, prima facie, the Criminal Courts at both the places may have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint about said offence and also the application for anticipatory bail.;