SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SADAR BAZAAR POLICE STATION KADHAM JALNA POLICE STATION JALNA MAHARASHTRA STATE Vs. N N ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Sadal Bazeer Police Station, kadham Jalna Police Station, Jalna, Maharashtra State, has filed Criminal m. P. No. 6378 of 1988 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent N. N. Abdul Azeez on 26. 4. 1988in Crl. M. P. No. 1951 of 1988 by the sessions Judge, Madras and Crl. M. P. No. 6379 of 1988 for interim suspension of the said anticipatory bail order on the following grounds.

(2.) ON a complaint by the 3rd respondent Salam Dastagir, pensonpura, Saluna, Maharashtra State that the 1st respondent N. N. Abdul Azees along with six others entered into the house of the 3rd respondent which is at pensonpura, Saluna, Maharashtra State, and looted Rs. 2,000 and books from the cupboard at knife point and had also beaten the 3rd respondent and caused injuries between 8-30 P. M. , and 9-30 P. M. , on 5. 4. 1988, the petitioner registered a case against the 1st respondent and others in Crime No. 127 of 1988 under Sec395, I. P. C, According to the complaint, among the persons in the crowd that attacked the 3rd respondent, there are habitual offenders and Goondas. The 1st respondent is engaged in money lending business controlling two shops, one at Pazalpur, Aurangabad and another at Bhagowal. According to the petition, because of jealousy and business rivarly towards the 3rd respondent had set up persons and committed the offence. The 1st respondent is now living in Madras . He is required for further investigation having regard to the direct involvement in the said offence. The 1st respondent has obtained anticipatory bail from the Principal Sessions judge, Madras as stated above. When the 3rd respondent filed Crl. M. P. No. 2305 of 1988 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent threatened the wife of the 3rd respondent at Madras so that the 3rd respondent could not give any evidence against the 1st respondent. It is also contended in the petition that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in matters where offence was committed outside the jurisdiction of both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. However, the petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court. When the offence is committed outside the State, even if the High Court grants anticipatory bail, it will be only for a limited period and the accused should be directed to move the appropriate Court in that State for further anticipatory bail. In both the petitions, the 1st respondent is the accused and the 3rd respondent is the complainant, on whose complaint the petitioner has registered a case against the 1st respondent and others. The 2nd respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (Crimes and General), Madras 8.

(3.) ON a consideration of these decisions, it clear that this Court as well as the Sessions Court has got jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail if the threat of arrest is within the jurisdiction of that court, notwithstanding of fact that alleged offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of another High Court. Normally when the offence is alleged to have taken place outside the jurisdiction, for proper investigation, this Court gives only interim anticipatory bail directing the parties to move the concerned Court for regular anticipatory bail. In the instant case, on a complaint given by the 3rd respondent against the 1st respondent and others for alleged offence under Sec. 395 of I. P. C. , the petitioner, who is investigating the matter, seeks to arrest the 1st respondent. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that on 5. 4. 86 and 6. 4. 86 he was at Madras, for which also he refers to documentary evidence, viz. , his giving evidence before the fourth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras-15 on 6. 4. 1986. When the 1st respondent has made specific averments in the counter, the petitioner has not chosen to controvert the same by filling a reply. The 1st respondent claims in the counter that he is an income tax and wealth-tax assessee running a hospital and an industry. The allegation made against him is that he has committed robbery of Rs. 2,000, and Rs. 5,000 and some records. Having regard to the counter of the 1st respondent that on the particular day he was at Madras and having regard to his status as disclosed in the counter, I do not think that it is a fit case to cancel the anticipatory bail and direct the 1st respondent to move the appropriate court at Maharashtra State.