DR. AUGUSTINE FRANCIS PINTO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. Augustine Francis Pinto
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The abovementioned Anticipatory Bail Applications bearing Nos.1599 and 1608 of 2017 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure are filed for Transit Anticipatory Bail in order to enable the applicants to approach the appropriate Judicial Authority, in the State of Haryana praying that in the event of their arrest at the instance of Police attached to Bhondsi Police Station in connection with First Information Report No.0250 of 2017 dated 8th September 2017 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
(2.) The first informant namely Shri Barun Chandra Thakur, father of the deceased Master Pradhyuman Thakur, has filed an intervention application being Criminal Application No.847 of 2017.
At the outset, Mr. Tekriwal, learned Counsel for the Intervener submitted that there is no concept of transit anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr. P.C and the present anticipatory bail applications are filed on frivious and false grounds and therefore needs the same to be dismissed in totality. He submitted that the jurisdiction to file anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. lies within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Haryana, Gurugram or before the Punjab and Haryana High Court located at Chandigarh but not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. That the applicants seeking bail by approaching this Court are actually invoking wrong territorial jurisdiction and these transit anticipatory bail applications filed before this Court be dismissed on this ground alone. He further submitted that, in catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down the ratio that in cases of offences of diabolical, brutal or rarest in nature the accused should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail and therefore the present transit anticipatory bail applications be dismissed on this count also. He invited my attention to the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11th September 2017 in a Writ Petition filed by the intervener under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that, the issue involved in the said petition, which relates to ensure absolute safety and security of each and every child studying in all the schools across the country. The Supreme Court has further observed that, the petition is not restricted to the school concerned as it has a countrywide effect. He therefore prayed that the transit anticipatory bail applications be dismissed summarily.
(3.) Mrs. Pai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Maharashtra submitted that, there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing an application for transit anticipatory bail. She submitted that the offence in question has occurred beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the locale where the crime is committed. She further submitted that Section 438 of Cr. P.C., does not permit to grant anticipatory bail by any High Court or the Court of Sessions within the country where the accused may apprehend arrest. She submitted that the applicants ought to have approach the Sessions Court at Gurugram or the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for appropriate reliefs and the present applications are not maintainable in the eyes of law.
In support of her contention, she relied on the following decisions of Apex Court and other High Courts:
(i) Sandeep Sunilkumar Lohariya v. Jawhar Chelaram Bijlani @ Suresh Bijlani and Ors. [Order dated 14.6.2013 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4829 of 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court}
(ii) Sayed Zafrul Hassan and Anr. v. State [1986(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 60 : AIR 1986 Patna 194 : 1986 Cri. L.J. 605 (Full Bench of Patna High Court)
(iii) Sailesh Jaiswal v. State of West Bengal, 1998(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 448 : 1998 Law Suit (Cal) 194 : 1998 Cal Cri L. R 342 (Larger Bench of Five Judges of Calcutta High Court).
She therefore prayed that the present transit anticipatory bail applications may be dismissed summarily. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.