Grant of anticipatory bail for offences committed outside jurisdiction.

Has the High Court powers to grant anticipator) bail in respect of offences committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction? This, in short, is the question that arises for consideration in these two applications.

2. The Calcutta High Court has, in B.R. Sinha v. State B.R. Sinha v. State (1981)85 Cal.W.N. 927:(1982) Crl.L.J. 61 taken the view that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the person resides is competent to grant anticipatory bail, even though the offence is alleged to be committed outside its jurisdiction. The Karnataka High Court in Dr. L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka Dr. L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka (1984) Crl.L.J. 757 has followed the Calcutta view. The Delhi High Court in two decisions, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Crl.L.J. 1174 and Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1981) Crl.L.J. (N.O.C.) 159, holds that when offence are alleged to be committed in two States, the High Courts in both the States have the necessary power to grant anticipatory bail. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab (1984) Crl.L.J. 714 expressly dissented from the Calcutta view and held that as bail is in respect of an offence, only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed has jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Madras High Court in such cases grants only interim relief directing the applicant to move the appropriate Court within a specified time for bail under this section.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in the two cases and Sri Chettur Sankaran Nair, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and in the light of the leading decision of the Supreme Court on the subject in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Crl.L.J. 1125: (1980)2 S.C.C. 565: (1980) S.C.C. (Crl.) 465: (1980) L.W. (Crl.) 135: A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 it is not necessary to take the very wide view that residence of the applicant will furnish the clue for the exercise of jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail or the restricted view that the place of the commission of the offence alone will invest the Court with the jurisdiction to give relief under Section 438.

4. We have to take note of the fact that the offence may be committed in one State and that the applicant may reside in another State; or he may have residence in several States. He may be arrested while he is on the move, after committing the crime, before he reaches his place of residence in another State. It cannot be that he can be armed with orders of anticipatory bail from every High Court it cannot also be that conflicting orders are issued by different High Courts in respect of the same offence and in respect of the same alleged offender. A balance therefore to be struck keeping in, view the Constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22, the procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code and the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts in India.

5. A brief reference to the relevant constitutional provisions, a short survey of the extent of the powers of arrest and the purpose for which anticipatory bail is granted should naturally provide the answer to the problem raised regarding the jurisdiction of a High Court to grant anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed outside its territorial limits.

6. Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and Article 22(2) provides:

“Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate.”

7. Under