Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Beyond Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court held that it had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in cases arising outside its jurisdiction. The court considered the offense under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as the only non-bailable offense in the case, which could be tried in both Punjab and Delhi courts. The judge emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not restrict the High Court's jurisdiction in granting bail based on the location of arrest. The court rejected the argument that Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners upon arrest, subject to certain conditions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to grant anticipatory bail in cases arising outside its jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The judgment involved two petitions, Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980. The petitioners were Pritam Singh, the proprietor of a press, and Amar Bharati, a practitioner of Homoeopathic medicines and author. The complaint was made by Sardar Kapur Singh regarding the alleged misuse of photographs in a book published by the petitioners. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail as the case was registered in Punjab, and the State of Punjab did not oppose the bail on merits but argued that Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in cases outside its jurisdiction. The judge referred to a previous order by A.B. Rohatgi, J., stating that the appropriate court for relief should be approached based on the jurisdiction of the alleged offence location.

The judge considered the offense under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the only non-bailable offense in the case. It was noted that the offense could be tried in both Punjab and Delhi courts, and if Delhi courts had jurisdiction to try the offense, they could grant bail. The judge emphasized that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not restrict the jurisdiction of the High Court or the court of session in granting bail. It was clarified that the jurisdiction for granting bail is based on the location of the arrest or potential arrest, and the power to grant anticipatory bail stems from the same jurisdiction. The judge rejected the State of Punjab's argument regarding the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and emphasized that concurrent jurisdiction in courts of different states is permissible under the Cr. P.C.

Ultimately, the judge accepted the petitions and directed that the petitioners would be released on anticipatory bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety. The conditions included making themselves available for police interrogation in Punjab and refraining from tampering with witnesses or individuals related to the case.

---