The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in granting anticipatory bail for offences committed outside its jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is the defacto complainant, filed the present application aggrieved by the order of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally at Hyderabad granting relief of anticipatory bail to respondents 3 to 6 in Crl.M.P.No.2411 of 2023 in Cr.No.254 of 2023 of Police Station, Civil Lines Thana, Korba. Petitioner seeks cancellation of the said orders.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint making several allegations against respondents 3 to 6 herein. Since complaint was registered as a crime, the 3rd respondent/husband filed anticipatory bail application before the District and Sessions Judge at Korba. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that signatures were not tallying in the affidavit and the application that was made. Thereafter, they have approached the High Court of Chattisgarh on 07.07.2023 and anticipatory bail application was filed. However, it was withdrawn on 03.08.2023.

3. In the meanwhile, anticipatory bail application filed before the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally at Hyderabad, by the accused was heard and impugned orders were passed on 19.07.2023.

4. The main ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Sessions Court in Hyderabad does not have jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail application for crime registered in Korba, Chattisgarh District. If Section 438 of Cr.P.C is interpreted as having jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail for crime registered anywhere in India, then more than 5000 Sessions Courts established in India, who would have jurisdiction of criminal cases filed all over India. It is not the intention of the Legislature to extend powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to a Sessions Judge outside his jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is clearly demarcated under Cr.P.C.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the husband and relatives had suppressed facts from the Sessions Court in Hyderabad and sought bail. The fact that anticipatory bail filed by the 3rd respondent/husband was dismissed in the Sessions Court at Korba and also that bail petition was pending before the High Court of Chattisgarh was not informed to the Sessions Court at Hyderabad. For the said reasons, the impugned order has to be cancelled and set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6/accused would submit that the Sessions Court at Hyderabad had jurisdiction. He further submits that the anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge at Korba was not decided on merits and same was returned on technical objections. He submits that to harass the accused, several complaints were filed by the petitioner/wife. The petitioner is harassing the respondent/husband by filing false complaints. Aggrieved by the illegal action of the wife, her relatives, husband filed case against them in Banjara Hills police which was registered as FIR No.696 of 2023. This Court in Criminal Petition No.7740 of 2023 directed the police to follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. He further submits that in accordance with the directions of this Court, the concerned police at Korba had accepted the sureties and were let off on bail. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments; i) Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab : 1980 CriLJ 1174; ii) B.R.Sinha v. The State : 1982 CriLJ 61; iii) L.R.Naidu v. State of Karnataka : 1984 (1) KarLJ 475; iv) N.K.Nayar and others v. State of Maharashtra : 1985 Cri LJ 1887; v) T.Madhusoodan v. The Superintendent of Police and others : 1992 Cri LJ 3442; vi) Kailashpati Kedia v. State of Maharashtra and others : 1996 JLJ 363; vii) Mahesh Kumar Sarda v. Union of India : 2001(1) ALD (Cri) 127; viii) Sundarapu Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others : MANU/AP/0149/2020; ix) Subasa Chandra Malik v. State of Odisha : 2023(I) ILR-CUT239 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab : AIR 1980 SC 1632.

7.