- (1.) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadal Bazeer Police Station, kadham Jalna Police Station, Jalna, Maharashtra State, has filed Criminal m. P. No. 6378 of 1988 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent N. N. Abdul Azeez on 26. 4. 1988in Crl. M. P. No. 1951 of 1988 by the sessions Judge, Madras and Crl. M. P. No. 6379 of 1988 for interim suspension of the said anticipatory bail order on the following grounds.
(2.) ON a complaint by the 3rd respondent Salam Dastagir, pensonpura, Saluna, Maharashtra State that the 1st respondent N. N. Abdul Azees along with six others entered into the house of the 3rd respondent which is at pensonpura, Saluna, Maharashtra State, and looted Rs. 2,000 and books from the cupboard at knife point and had also beaten the 3rd respondent and caused injuries between 8-30 P. M. , and 9-30 P. M. , on 5. 4. 1988, the petitioner registered a case against the 1st respondent and others in Crime No. 127 of 1988 under Sec395, I. P. C, According to the complaint, among the persons in the crowd that attacked the 3rd respondent, there are habitual offenders and Goondas. The 1st respondent is engaged in money lending business controlling two shops, one at Pazalpur, Aurangabad and another at Bhagowal. According to the petition, because of jealousy and business rivarly towards the 3rd respondent had set up persons and committed the offence. The 1st respondent is now living in Madras . He is required for further investigation having regard to the direct involvement in the said offence. The 1st respondent has obtained anticipatory bail from the Principal Sessions judge, Madras as stated above. When the 3rd respondent filed Crl. M. P. No. 2305 of 1988 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent threatened the wife of the 3rd respondent at Madras so that the 3rd respondent could not give any evidence against the 1st respondent. It is also contended in the petition that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in matters where offence was committed outside the jurisdiction of both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. However, the petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court. When the offence is committed outside the State, even if the High Court grants anticipatory bail, it will be only for a limited period and the accused should be directed to move the appropriate Court in that State for further anticipatory bail. In both the petitions, the 1st respondent is the accused and the 3rd respondent is the complainant, on whose complaint the petitioner has registered a case against the 1st respondent and others. The 2nd respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (Crimes and General), Madras 8. The main contention of the 1st respondent in the counter is as follows. . . . . . The 1st respondent is a respectable businessman. The complaint given by the 3rd respondent that the 1st respondent along with others entered into his house at Jalna, Maharashtra State on the night of 5. 4. 1988, on the face of it is false. Actually, on 6. 4. 1988, the next day of the alleged occurrence, the 1st respondent appeared before the court, Metropolitan magistrate, Saidapet, Madras-15 had given evidence as P. W. 1. between 12-00 Noon and 1. 00 P. M. , In fact on 5. 4. 1988 at 6. 00 P. M. , he was with his counsel mr. K. A. Panchapagesan in his office discussing the case in which he had to give evidence on the next day. Besides, the complaint referred to, another complaint was given by one Mohammed Hussain against the 1st respondent and others on the allegation that on the same night i. e. , on 8. 4. 1988 at about 10. 30 P. M. , they entered into his office premises, beat him, broke open the drawer of his table and took away Rs. 5,000 besides a wrist watch and some account books. This complaint as well as the earlier complaint were given only on 8. 4. 1988. On the face of clinching evidence that the 1st respondent was at Madras on 5. 4. 1988 and 6. 4. 1988, the complaints given against him have to be thrown out. The learned sessions Judge after giving sufficient time to the City Public Prosecutor granted anticipatory bail. The petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was filed merely on the ground that that Court has no jurisdiction, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The order was passed on 20. 6. 1988. The petitioner did not take any action for more than 21 months thereafter. Now, he filed the present petitions, which are vexatious. The 1st respondent is a respectable person and an income tax and wealth-tax assessee running a hospital at Besant Nagar, Madras-20 and also a fertiliser factory at Siliguri. He did not stoop to the level of committing offences of looting Rs. 2,000and Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Court as well as the High Court has got jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail even for an offence committed outside the State when the arrest is sought to be made within its jurisdiction. Therefore, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed. The contention of the petitioner is that Sessions court as well as this Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail and utmost interim anticipatory bail alone can be granted since the alleged offence took place outside the State of Tamil Nadu, for which he relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Khan Bakshi v. State of punjab, 1984 Cri. L. J. 714, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the court to grant anticipatory bail arises with reference to the offender and therefore, Court can take cognisance of the offence notwithstanding the fact that the offender is living outside and jurisdiction of that Court. This decision only says that the Court, within whose jurisdiction an offence is alleged to have taken place, can grant anticipatory bail with reference to the alleged offender whether he is within the jurisdiction of that Court or outside the jurisdiction. It does not prohibit the Court within whose jurisdiction the offender is actually living from granting anticipatory bail with reference to an offence which is said to have taken place outside the jurisdiction of that court. In the decision reported in C. T. Mathew v. Government of India, Home Department (C. I. B), 1985 Crl. L. J. 1316, the Kerala High Court has stated that the High Court can grant anticipatory bail if the offencer is committed or arrest is sought to be effected within the jurisdiction of that high Court. It has only stated that High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail merely because the offender resides resides within its jurisdiction. This decision implies that anticipatory bail can be granted by Court where the offender resides provided he is sought to be arrested in that State but that court cannot grant anticipatory bail only on the sole ground that the offender resides. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that both the courts, i. e. , the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have taken place and also the Court where the alleged offender resides, have got jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. He has also cited the decision reported in Printam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Crl. L. J. 1174, wherein it was held that with respect to a first informatiion report registered in Punjab against a resident of Delhi, the Delhi High Court granting interim bail to the accused can also confirm it. In the decision reported in Binod ranjan Sinha v. The State, 85 C. W. N. 927, the Calcutta High Court has held that the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail of a petitioner who resides within the jurisdiction of that court though he is accused of a non-bailable offence committed in Bihar. In the decision reported in N. K. Nayar v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Crl. L. J. 1887, the bombay High Court has held that the real cause for making an application for anticipatory bail is the contemplated arrest of a person and if the arrest is likely to be effected within the jurisdiction of particular High Court the concerned person has the remedy of applying so that High Court for anticipatory bail even if the offence might have been committed in some other State. Of course, it was pointed out that the Court while granting anticipatory bail can impose such condition as necessary for the smooth progress of the investigation. Even the court can also grant anticipatory bail for a specified period directing the party in the meanwhile to move the Court within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence is said to have taken place for regular anticipatory bail.
(3.) ON a consideration of these decisions, it clear that this Court as well as the Sessions Court has got jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail if the threat of arrest is within the jurisdiction of that court, notwithstanding of fact that alleged offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of another High Court. Normally when the offence is alleged to have taken place outside the jurisdiction, for proper investigation, this Court gives only interim anticipatory bail directing the parties to move the concerned Court for regular anticipatory bail. In the instant case, on a complaint given by the 3rd respondent against the 1st respondent and others for alleged offence under Sec. 395 of I. P. C. , the petitioner, who is investigating the matter, seeks to arrest the 1st respondent. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that on 5. 4. 86 and 6. 4. 86 he was at Madras, for which also he refers to documentary evidence, viz. , his giving evidence before the fourth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras-15 on 6. 4. 1986. When the 1st respondent has made specific averments in the counter, the petitioner has not chosen to controvert the same by filling a reply. The 1st respondent claims in the counter that he is an income tax and wealth-tax assessee running a hospital and an industry. The allegation made against him is that he has committed robbery of Rs. 2,000, and Rs. 5,000 and some records. Having regard to the counter of the 1st respondent that on the particular day he was at Madras and having regard to his status as disclosed in the counter, I do not think that it is a fit case to cancel the anticipatory bail and direct the 1st respondent to move the appropriate court at Maharashtra State. However, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is not available for. interrogation in connection with the investigation of the case registered against him. In those circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent to appear before the 2nd respondent Assistant commissioner of Police (Crimes-General), Egmore, Madras-8 once a week on every monday at 10-15 A. M. , and on such other dates as may be specified by the petitioner to enable the petitioner to interrogate him with reference to the complaint registered against him. Subject to the condition imposed above both the petitions are dismissed. ;