High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Across State Lines, Emphasizes Personal Liberty

The Delhi High Court held that it had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail even if the alleged offence occurred in another state. The court found the writ petition maintainable due to the imminent threat to personal liberty and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an M.P. with deep roots in society, in a criminal case pending in Uttar Pradesh. The court emphasized the importance of considering various factors for granting anticipatory bail and allowed the petition, directing the petitioner's release on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- in the event of arrest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court for Anticipatory Bail
2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition
3. Grant of Anticipatory Bail

Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court for Anticipatory Bail:

The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail when the alleged offence occurred in Uttar Pradesh. The court referred to previous judgments, including Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, which established that there is nothing in S. 438 Cr.P.C. that restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to the territorial limits of where the offence was committed. The court observed that "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." The court endorsed the consensus view of various High Courts that the High Court or Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the person has a reasonable apprehension of arrest shall have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

Respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of alternate remedies under Cr.P.C. and parallel proceedings initiated in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. The court rejected this argument, stating that when there is an imminent threat of deprivation of personal liberty, the petitioner cannot be asked to avail of alternate remedies as they may not be adequate or efficacious. The court also noted that the petitioner's counsel had not pressed for quashing the proceedings and the impugned warrant, focusing only on restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner and for anticipatory bail.

Grant of Anticipatory Bail:

The court considered various factors for granting anticipatory bail, as outlined in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab. The petitioner had reason to believe he was going to be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The court noted that the petitioner is an M.P. with deep roots in society, reducing the likelihood of absconding or tampering with witnesses. The court also observed that the investigation was complete, and charge-sheets had been filed without implicating the petitioner. Given the nature of the offence and the circumstances, the court concluded that the petitioner deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

The court allowed the petition and enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail in criminal case Crime No. 182 A/89 pending in the Court of C.J.M., District Sultanpur, U.P. The court directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.

Petition allowed.

---