Back
2001 Supreme(Gau) 108
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.B.Deb, J.
Dinabandu Das -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Ors. -Respondent
Bail Application Nos 16, 17 and 18 (SH) of 2001
Decided On : 20-04-2001
D.K.Das Choudhary, P.B.Marnagar
The main legal point established is that the territorial jurisdiction of a court is crucial in determining the maintainability of petitions, and the establishment of permanent benches is specific to cases arising in designated states.
Headnote:
Territorial Jurisdiction - Gauhati High Court - Article 231, Constitution of India - Section 24(2), State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986 - Section 31(2), North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 - Rule 2, The Gauhati High Court (Establishment of Permanent Bench at Shillong) Order, 1995
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr PC at Shillong Bench of Gauhati High Court. The issue was whether the Shillong Bench of the Gauhati High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the permanent Bench at Shillong has been established to exercise jurisdiction and power for cases arising in the State of Meghalaya only, and the alleged offence being committed in Assam did not fall within its jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Shillong Bench of the Gauhati High Court over the bail petitions filed by the accused petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court between the Principal Seat at Guwahati and the permanent Bench sitting at Shillong has been bifurcated, and the permanent Bench of Shillong has been vested with full power to entertain, deal with, and hear cases arising in the State of Meghalaya only.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail petitions as not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Shillong Bench over the matter.
2. One Smti Parbati Das of village Rongpur, PS Silchar, Assam, lodged FIR 10.12.2000 against Shri Dinabandu Das, Shri Joy Krishna Das and Shri Krishna Das (petitioners in the related petitions) narrating facts constituting offence, ex-facie, under sections 324/325/307/302/34, IPC and the Police Station concerned registered the FIR being Silchar PS Case No. 1568/2000 (dated 10.12.2000).
3. The petitioners sought for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr PC at Shillong Bench of Gauhati High Court. The question posed as to whether the Shillong Bench of the Gauhati High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. DK Das Choudhury, having referred to Article 231 of the Constitution of India submits that this Court being t part of the Gauahti High Court has complete jurisdiction to entertain these bail petitions notwithstanding the alleged offence committed at Silchar within the State of Assam. The Gauhati High Court, according to the learned counsel, is a common High Court for all the even States including the State of Meghalaya, and as such, any Hon'ble Judge sitting at Shillong Bench can entertain any matter arising out of any of these seven States.
4. This permanent Bench has been established by the President of India in exercise of power vested upon him under section 24 (2) of the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986 read with section 31 (2) of North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, vide notification No. GSR 49 (E), dated 1.2.1995, which is called "The Gauhati High Court (Establishment of Permanent Bench at Shillong) Order, 1995". So far the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench is concerned" it is provided under Rule 2 which is quoted below :
"2. Establishment of a Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court at Shillong-There shall be established a Permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Shillong, and such Judges of the Gauhati High Court, being not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit in Shillong in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in the Gauhati High Court in respect of cases arising in the State of Meghalaya;
Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in the State of Meghalaya shall be heard at Gauhati."
5. So it appears from the Presidential Order that this permanent Bench at Shillong has been established to exercise jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in Gauhati High Court in respect of cases arising in the State of Meghalaya (emphasis supplied). It is not disputed that the alleged offence has been committed at village Rongpur under Police Station Silchar within the State of Assam and not within the State of Meghalaya. The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasizes that notwithstanding the place of incident the petitioners being a permanent residents of Meghalaya have every right to seek for pre-arrest bail before this Bench at Shillong.
6. But from the afore quoted Presidential Order it reveals that the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court between the Principal Seat at Guwahati and the permanent Bench sitting at Shillong has been bifurcated/identified, only in exceptional circumstances, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has been delegated with the discretionary power to allow the same to be filed/heard at Principal Seat at Guwahati regarding any cases or class of cases arising in any State other than the State of Assam. By the Presidential Order division of territorial jurisdiction has been identified and demarcated and the permanent Bench of Shillong has been vested with full power to entertain, deal with and hear i
