Date of judgement:
03.06.2022
Bench:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
Parties:
Plaintiffs – NASIR AHMAD WANI & ORS.
Respondent – POLICE STATION NEEMUCH & ORS.
SUBJECT
In this case, the High Court, while dealing with the issue of granting bail in cases registered in another State, held that the High Court cannot grant bail where the case is registered in a police station beyond its jurisdiction.
OVERVIEW
- In this case, the petitioner had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
- The complainant wife and the petitioner husband had been married in 2013 and had a child born out of the marriage
- The petitioners contended that in matrimonial matters, bail should ordinarily be granted and arrest is not the ordinary recourse. The petitioners relied on Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & another, 2015 SAR (Criminal) 1179, in support of their contention.
- The case in respect of which the bail was sought was registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh and hence, the primary issue that came before the Court was whether the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir can grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the High Court can grant anticipatory bail for cases registered in another State?
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 438: In what cases bail to be taken
- Section 437: When bail may be taken in non bailable offences
- Section 167: investigation not completed within 24 hours.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court relied on the case of Mohan Singh Parihar vs. Commission of Police and Ors. 1982 CriLJ 1182 while analysing this judgement.
- In this case, the Court had held that the Court of Sessions and the High Court are competent to try all cases which are properly brought to trial before the Court.
- However, the Courts can exercise their power to grant anticipatory bail only within the territory of the State.
- The Court held that the High Court does not have appropriate jurisdiction to ensure compliance of its anticipatory order outside the limits of the State and hence an interpretation in favour of the High Court having power to pass inter state anticipatory bail cannot be accepted.
- Lastly, the Court, while interpreting Sections 497 of Jammu and Kashmir CrPC (para materia to Section 437 of Central CrPC) held that the expression "a Court" in these Sections includes only such Courts which have the power to try the case and no other Court.
- The later interpretation would bring Section 497 in conflict with Section 167 of the Code.
- Section 167 deals with a situation where the investigation is not completed within 24 hours.
- This Section provides that while a Magistrate, whether he has jurisdiction or not, has power to authorise detention of the accused in police custody for up to 15 days, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that further detention is not required, he cannot grant bail until he is competent to try the case of commit it for trial and in case the Magistrate is not competent to try the case, then he may direct that the accused be presented before a Magistrate having jurisdiction.
- The Court observed that since this Section requires that bail can only be granted by a Court competent to try the case, thus, the same requirement shall also apply to Section 497 (Jammu and Kashmir CrPC).
- Thus, the Court held that a High Court cannot grant bail with respect to a Court outside
- Based on the above considerations, the Court held that even if the petitioner resided within the Court's jurisdiction, if the case was registered beyond the Court's local limits, them bail cannot be granted to him.
CONCLUSION
The Court, through this judgement, has ensured judicial harmony and avoided jurisdictional conflicts and confusion by observing that the High Courts have wide powers to deal with all types of offences, but can grant bail only with reference to cases registered within their territorial jurisdiction.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
