Anticipatory bail jurisdiction and infructuous appeal principles shaped dismissal of one challenge and transfer of connected applications.

The challenge to anticipatory bail became infructuous once the respondent was arrested and taken into custody, so the appeal was dismissed on that basis, while any complaint about breach of the earlier order was left open before the appropriate forum. The Court also held that anticipatory bail applications relating to alleged offences within Assam should be heard only after notice to the State, and, for practical consistency, by the High Court of Guwahati. The impugned anticipatory bail orders were set aside and the matters were transferred for fresh hearing by a Division Bench, with similar connected applications directed to be placed before the same Bench to avoid conflicting orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal became infructuous on the arrest of the respondent; (ii) whether the anticipatory bail applications were liable to be set aside and transferred for hearing by the High Court of Guwahati after notice to the State and in view of the territorial nexus of the alleged offences.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal became infructuous on the arrest of the respondent.

Analysis: Once the respondent was arrested and taken into custody, the controversy arising from the challenge to the order granting anticipatory bail no longer required adjudication in that appeal. Any grievance about violation of the earlier order was left open to be raised before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the anticipatory bail applications were liable to be set aside and transferred for hearing by the High Court of Guwahati after notice to the State and in view of the territorial nexus of the alleged offences.

Analysis: The State of Assam and its Director General of Police had not been heard before the anticipatory bail orders were passed. The Court held that, for practical purposes, such applications concerning alleged activities within Assam should be considered by the High Court of Guwahati. To avoid conflicting orders, future connected applications for anticipatory bail in such matters were directed to be heard only by the designated Division Bench of that High Court.

Conclusion: The impugned anticipatory bail orders were set aside and the applications were transferred to the High Court of Guwahati for fresh hearing by a Division Bench.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with one appeal dismissed as infructuous and the connected anticipatory bail matters remitted to the High Court of Guwahati for reconsideration after hearing the State, with a direction that similar future applications in related matters be placed before the same Division Bench.

---