MATHEWS PETER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Batch of anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC, the question for consideration is whether the place of offence or the residence of the offender which governs the jurisdiction?

(2.) In Criminal Petition No.4053 of 1998, the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad, but he is prosecuted by the Samartha Police Station of Pune of Maharashtra State. In Criminal Petition No.4291 of 1998, the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad, but is facing prosecution under Section 498-A in Hooghly District of West Bengal. The petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.3905, 3906 and 3907 of 1998 are residents of Hyderabad and are facing prosecution launched by SHO, Kashmirigate Police Station, Delhi. The petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos.4023, 4024, 4177 and 4186 of 1998 who are the residents of Hyderabad are the accused in the crimes registered by Burra Bazar Police Station, Calcutta.

(3.) Two learned Judges of this Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail basing upon, the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in B.R. Singha v. State, 1992 CrI.LJ 61, which was followed by this Court in Zaki Ishrati v. Inspector (Customs), 1994 (2)-ALT (Crl.) 403 (AP), and V.RS. Sai Surangini v. Inspector of Police, 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 673 (AP). The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir had struck a different note in Pradeep Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.LJ.2055, Mohan Singh v. Commander of Police, New Delhi, 1983 CrI.LJ 1182 (J&K), and Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab, 1984 CrI.LJ 714 (P&H). When Criminal Petitions 4023 and 4024 came up before the learned single Judge, my learned Brother Eilal Nazki, J., disagreed with the view taken by two learned Judges of this Court in Zaki Ishrati v. Inspector (Customs) (supra) and V.RS. Sai Surangini v. Inspector of Police (supra) and referred the matter to a Division Bench. In view of the same, the other cases also came- up before the Bench.