High Courts' Jurisdiction on Anticipatory Bail for Offences Beyond Territory

The judgment clarified that High Courts have jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for offences committed outside their territorial limits. It emphasized the importance of balancing constitutional guarantees, procedural safeguards, and jurisdiction conferred on High Courts. The court highlighted that anticipatory bail is closely linked to the offence or crime and can be granted by the court where the arrest is sought or where the offence occurred. The specific orders in two cases directed bail conditions if the petitioners were arrested in Kerala, emphasizing availability for interrogation and restrictions on leaving India without permission. The judgment concluded that the accused's residence is not a relevant factor for determining jurisdiction for anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Courts to grant anticipatory bail for offences committed outside their territorial limits.
2. Interpretation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning anticipatory bail.
3. Constitutional provisions related to arrest and detention.
4. Practical implications of granting anticipatory bail by different High Courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of High Courts to Grant Anticipatory Bail for Offences Committed Outside Their Territorial Limits:
The primary issue addressed is whether a High Court has the authority to grant anticipatory bail for offences committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The judgment references various High Court decisions with differing views. The Calcutta High Court in B. R. Sinha v. State (1982 Crl. L.J. 61) held that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the person resides can grant anticipatory bail even if the offence is committed outside its jurisdiction. The Karnataka High Court in L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka (1984 Crl.L.J. 757) followed this view. Conversely, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab (1984 Crl. L.J. 714) dissented, stating that only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed has the authority under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Interpretation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Concerning Anticipatory Bail:
The judgment emphasizes that Section 438 allows any person who anticipates arrest for a non-bailable offence to apply for anticipatory bail. The court must balance the constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22, procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the jurisdiction conferred on High Courts. The judgment notes that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal process closely linked with an offence or crime, as observed by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632).

3. Constitutional Provisions Related to Arrest and Detention:
Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Article 22(2) mandates that every person arrested and detained must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours. The judgment highlights that the place of arrest provides a reasonable nexus for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438.

4. Practical Implications of Granting Anticipatory Bail by Different High Courts:
The judgment addresses the practical difficulties arising from conflicting orders by different High Courts. It asserts that the court within whose jurisdiction the arrest is sought to be effected can decide on granting anticipatory bail. The court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed is also competent to grant anticipatory bail. However, the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court or Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed will extend beyond the territorial limits of that court. The judgment concludes that the residence of the accused is not a relevant factor for fixing jurisdiction for anticipatory bail.

Case-Specific Orders:

Crl. M.C. No. 665 of 1984:
The petitioner, a stock and share broker from Kerala, apprehends arrest in connection with cases registered in West Bengal. The court directs that if the petitioner is arrested within Kerala, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond for Rs. 2000/- and two solvent sureties. The petitioner must be available for interrogation in Kerala and shall not leave India without permission.

Crl. M.C. No. 708 of 1984:
The petitioner, a Class I Officer of the Indian Railways, apprehends arrest in connection with a case in Bihar. The court directs that if the petitioner is arrested within Kerala, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond for Rs. 2000/- and two solvent sureties. The petitioner must be available for interrogation in Kerala and shall not leave India without permission.

Conclusion:
The judgment establishes that anticipatory bail can be granted by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the arrest is sought to be effected or the offence is committed. However, the relief granted should be restricted to arrests within the respective State, and the residence of the accused is not a determining factor for jurisdiction. The orders issued do not prevent the petitioners from seeking appropriate relief from the respective courts in West Bengal and Bihar.

---