Dear Members,
There is a lot of controversy over the question as to the High Court, which a person may apply when the offence is committed in one jurisdiction and the accused resides in another jurisdiction.but this seems to be settled nw and another court where the accused resides shall have jurisdiction to grant ab. we may take a recent judgment of Delhi HC grating bail to Varun Gandhi.
The Calcutta10, Karnataka11, Bombay12, and Patna13HighCourts have held that there is no bar to the applicant asking for an anticipatory bailfrom the court within whose jurisdiction he is apprehending arrest. On the otherhand the Punjab14, J&K15, Kerala and MP High Courts have held that bail andanticipatory bail are mere ancillary matters to the whole trial procedure. So, in theabsence of any specific guidelines in s. 438, the general rule under s. 177 must apply.Thus only the high court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed andwhich has the jurisdiction to try the case is competent to grant the anticipatory bail.It is submitted that s. 438 is a provision to preserve individual liberty and thatconferring competence only on the courts within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed would amount to a lot of hardship to the applicant. But in the absence ofany specific legislative guideline, the general rule must be applied.
9Ramesh Chandra vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 Cri LJ 210 (Gujarat).10B.R. Sinha vs. State of West Bengal, 1982 Cri LJ 61 (Cal).11Naidu vs. State of Karnataka, 1984 Cri LJ 757 (Kant).12N.K. Nayar vs.State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 1887 (Bombay).13Syed Zafrul vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Pat 194.14Ravinder vs. State of Punjab, 1984 Cri LJ 714 (Punj and Har).15Mohan vs. State (1983) Cri LJ 1182 (J & K
