High Courts' Jurisdiction for Anticipatory Bail Beyond Territorial Limits

The court held that the High Court and Court of Session have the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail outside their territorial limits, as long as the case is registered within their jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized that the High Court's powers are not restricted by territorial boundaries within Jammu and Kashmir, unlike lower courts. Granting anticipatory bail outside the state's jurisdiction could lead to non-compliance with court orders, undermining the legal process. The court dismissed the petition and vacated any interim relief granted to the petitioner, upholding the State's objection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail outside their territorial limits.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a petition under Section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, questioning the High Court and Court of Session's powers to grant anticipatory bail when a case is registered at a police station outside their territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner, a resident of Jammu and Kashmir, sought anticipatory bail for a case registered in New Delhi. The State objected to the High Court granting bail in such cases, citing jurisdictional limitations. The court analyzed Section 497-A, emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction extends throughout Jammu and Kashmir, while lower courts have defined territorial limits.

The judgment interprets various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code to establish that the High Court's powers are not restricted by territorial boundaries within Jammu and Kashmir, unlike lower courts. It highlights that the High Court's orders do not bind courts or police stations outside the state's territory. Granting anticipatory bail outside the state's jurisdiction could lead to non-compliance with court orders, undermining the legal process. The judgment stresses that the High Court and Court of Session must have the competence to try the accused seeking bail to grant anticipatory bail.

The judgment distinguishes a Calcutta High Court decision cited by the petitioner, emphasizing that it involved cases pending before courts outside the jurisdiction, not registered with police stations outside the local limits. It references a Supreme Court ruling to assert that the powers of the High Court and Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail are not confined by statutory limitations. The court dismisses the petition, upholding the State's objection and vacating any interim relief granted to the petitioner.

---