|S.no||Citation||Relevant Excerpts||Page N1.|
|Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab – 1980 CriLJ 1174 (Delhi High Court)
|“(4) The objection taken to my mind is entirely misconceived. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and is carrying on his business at this place. According to the First Information Report, the agreement for printing and publishing the book ‘Sachi Sakhi’ was entered into at Delhi between the complainant and the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehending arrest at Delhi, prima fade, therefore. this Court has jurisdiction to grant him not only interim bail but to confirm the same within the purview of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Shri Gurbuksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, . have laid down the principles for invoking the
jurisdiction of the High Courts to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this decision no fetter like the one being sought by Mr. Sodhi can be read….”
|Capt.Satish Sharma v. Delhi Administration (Delhi High Court – Division Bench) 1991 CrLJ 950/ ILR 1990 Delhi 203.
|“15. A similar question arose before this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1981) 19 Delhi LT 300 : (1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 159) where a cognizable offence was alleged to have been committed in the State of Punjab whereas the anticipatory bail was applied for before the Delhi High Court as the accused had reasonable apprehension of arrest in Delhi. In that context this Court observed that there is nothing in S. 438 which restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session. One need not mix up the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence with that of granting of bails. Bails are against arrest and detention. Therefore, an appropriate Court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. If the Court of session or the High Court has the jurisdiction to grant interim bail, then the power to grant full anticipatory bail will emanate from the same jurisdiction. Con-current jurisdiction in courts situated in different States is not outside the scope of the Cr.P.C. It is not possible to divide the jurisdiction under S. 438, Cr.P.C. into an ad interim and complete, but it is permissible if it is so expedient or desirable, for any of the courts competent to take cognizance of and to try an offence and the courts competent to grant bails or grant anticipatory bail for a specified period only, and thereby this Court rejected the contention of the State of Punjab with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the State of Punjab. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was allowed finally and not as an interim measure”
“20. In the light of what is discussed above, the consensus view of various High Courts that emerges is that the High Court or Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the person has a reasonable apprehension that he would be arrested shall have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. We agree and endorse this consensus view and more particularly the view expressed by our High Court in Pritam Singh’s case (1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 159) (Delhi) (supra). With respect, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view expressed by the Patna High Court”
“22. A bare perusal of the Section reveals that no restriction for grant of anticipatory bail have been imposed in S. 438(1) for exercise of jurisdiction by that High Court or Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. On the order hand, such High Court of Session has been conferred jurisdiction to exercise such power. It is no doubt true that the High Court or the Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed and within whose jurisdiction the offence ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court shall also have the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. But this does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail where a person has reason to believe that he would be arrested in connection with non-bailable offence. S. 438(1) is wide enough to confer jurisdiction not only to the High Court or the Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed and is to be enquired into and tried but also the High Court or the Court of Session where a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with the commission of non-bailable offence. By taking away the jurisdiction from the High Court or the Court of Session for the grant of anticipatory bail within its territorial jurisdiction respect of a person who may be arrested in connection with non-bailable offence would be reading certain words in the section which are not to be found therein. At the cost of repetition no restriction whatsoever has been placed for exercise of power by the High Court or the court of Session for the grant of anticipatory bail within whose territorial jurisdiction if a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with non-bailable offence. The purpose for which this beneficial provision of anticipatory bail was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been referred to by the Supreme Court in, para 8 of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, of that judgment is reproduced…
|Kailashpati Kedia v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
1996 (0) MPLJ 847 – Madhya Pradesh High Court
|“19. The High Courts of Rajasthan, Kerala, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Karnataka have taken a view that the anticipatory bail can be granted in a case registered beyond the jurisdiction of the Court concerned. However, the High Courts at Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab & Haryana and Patna have taken a contra view. 20. We are inclined to accept the view taken by majority of High Courts. 21. We would, therefore, answer the reference in the affirmative and hold that anticipatory bail can be granted even in cases where the offence has been registered at a place beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court but within the territory of India.”|
|Feroze Varun Gandhi v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Delhi High Court BAIL APPLN. 547/2009
|“The counsel for the petitioner also states that he relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Delhi
Administration and Ors. 1991 Crl. Law Journal 950. Notice. Mr. Manoj Ohri, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 and raises objection to the maintainability of the application. Notice shall now issue to the State of Uttar Pradesh/respondent No.2 through the Resident Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, returnable for 27th March, 2009 at 2.15 p.m. Till then, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the
petitioner shall be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Court Master, as prayed.
Good Luck !
Advocate Supreme Court of India