C I MATHEW Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAS the High Court powers to grant anticipator) bail in respect of offences committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction" This, in short, is the question that arises for consideration in these two applications.

(2.) THE Calcutta High Court has, in B.R. Sinha v. State, (1981)85 Cal.W.N. 927: (1982) Crl.L.J. 61, taken the view that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the person resides is competent to grant anticipatory bail, even though the offence is alleged to be committed outside its jurisdiction. THE Karnataka High Court in Dr. L.R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka, (1984) Crl.L.J. 757, has followed the Calcutta view. THE Delhi High Court in two decisions, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) Crl.L.J. 1174, and Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1981) Crl.L.J. (N.O.C.) 159, holds that when offence are alleged to be committed in two States, the High Courts in both the States have the necessary power to grant anticipatory bail. THE Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab, (1984) Crl.L.J. 714, expressly dissented from the Calcutta view and held that as bail is in respect of an offence, only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed has jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THE Madras High Court in such cases grants only interim relief directing the applicant to move the appropriate Court within a specified time for bail under this section.

(3.) WE have to take note of the fact that the offence may be committed in one State and that the applicant may reside in another State or he may have residence in several States. He may be arrested while he is on the move, after committing the crime, before he reaches his place of residence in another State. It cannot be that he can be armed with orders of anticipatory bail from every High Court it cannot also be that conflicting orders are issued by different High Courts in respect of the same offence and in respect of the same alleged offender. A balance therefore to be struck keeping in, view the Constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22, the procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code and the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts in India.