2023 Supreme(SC) 1164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Priya Indoria - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.11423-11426 of 2023) (Arising out of Diary No.7943 of 2023)
Decided On : 20-11-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory bail – Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify offence or offences in respect of which alone order will be effective – Blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both right and duty of police in matter of investigation.
(2) Extra-territorial anticipatory bail – Power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only where denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to applicant – Court, while considering such application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct applicant to make application before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both right and duty of police in matter of investigation – Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify offence or offences in respect of which alone order will be effective – Power should not be exercised in a vacuum – Life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when accused is summoned by Court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till end of trial – Protection granted to a person under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should enure in favour of accused without any restriction on time – Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. should be imposed – March of criminal law has been towards chiselling an equitous remedy that strikes a delicate balance between imperative of personal liberty with that of effective administration of criminal law. (Paras 11.3, 12, 12.1, 12.2 and 15)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 read with Section 48 – Extra-territorial anticipatory bail – Grant of – An interpretation giving rise to an absolute bar on jurisdiction of a Court of Session or a High Court to grant interim anticipatory bail for an offence committed outside territorial confines of a High Court or Court of Session may lead to an anomalous and unjust consequence for bona fide applicants who may be victims of wrongful, mala fide or politically motivated prosecution – Fundamental right to personal liberty and access to justice, which are constitutionally recognised and statutorily preserved through presence of jurisdiction with superior Courts, would be undermined through such a restrictive interpretation – While construing a statute, constitutional Courts are obliged to render a contextually sensitive construction that preserves and furthers core constitutional values – Omission of any qualification of expression ‘the High Court or the Court of Session,’ ought to be constructed in a fashion that furthers constitutional ideal of safeguarding personal liberty – It would be in furtherance of fostering personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution of India in entrusting a wider jurisdiction to Court of Session and High Court in grant of anticipatory bail, than in foreclosing the same by restructuring exercise of jurisdiction in matter of grant of anticipatory bail – Courts in India have to be vigilant about such applications being filed particularly when a person alleged to have committed an offence can be proceeded with by setting criminal law in motion in a place other than place where offence has actually occurred. In such circumstances Courts must balance interest of accused in context of salutary principle of access to justice. (Paras 26, 27, 31 and 34)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 226 – Extra-territorial anticipatory bail – Grant of – Court of Session or High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon facts and circumstances of case, if accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that FIR has not been registered within territorial jurisdiction of High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider case of accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches competent Sessions Court or High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail – Power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only where denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to applicant – Court, while considering such application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct applicant to make application before a Court of competent jurisdiction – Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India and bearing in mind Article 14 thereof it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail. (Paras 37, 45 and 46)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 177 – Ordinary place of inquiry and trial – Adverse effects on mental health of wife even while residing in her parental home on account of acts committed in matrimonial home would amount to commission of cruelty within meaning of Section 498A at parental home – Courts at the place where wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by husband or his relatives, would, depending on factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of IPC – In present case by impugned orders, accused-husband and his family members were granted extra-territorial anticipatory bail without issuing notice to investigating officer and public prosecutor in Chirawa Police Station, Rajasthan wherein appellant had lodged FIR – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 48 and 49)

(E) Interpretation of Statute – It is a trite rule of statutory interpretation that penal statutes are to be construed strictly – When acts are to be made penal and are to be visited with loss or impairment of life, liberty, or property, it may well be argued that personal liberty requires clear and exact definition of the offence – Appropriate care must be taken to adopt an interpretation which makes textual interpretation match contextual. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:

A person allegedly under intoxication beats another person with an iron rod in State of Goa. Victim of attack is injured. Alleged assailant travels to Rourkela, Odisha, where he is working in a factory. Meanwhile, family of injured registered FIR for offence of causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Bicholim Police Station, Goa. On coming to know about the same and apprehending his arrest, alleged assailant files application for anticipatory bail before District and Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, Odisha, having jurisdiction over Rourkela. Whether alleged assailant’s application is maintainable or not? This is the question hat has come for consideration before this Court in present appeal.

Findings of Court:

On a reading of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., it does not emerge that expression “the High Court” or “Court of Session” must have reference only to place or territorial jurisdiction within which FIR is lodged. If that was the implication, same would have been expressly evident in the Section itself or by a necessary implication. Further use of word “the” before words “High Court” and “Court of Session” also does not mean that only High Court or Court of Session, as the case may be, within whose jurisdiction FIR is filed, is competent to exercise jurisdiction for grant of transit anticipatory bail.

Result : Appeals allowed.