MATHEWS PETER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Per B.Subhashan Reddy, J.) In this batch of anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 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.4053/98, the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad, but he is prosecuted by the Samartha Police Station of ijune of Maharashtra State. In Cr.P.No.4291/98, the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad, but is facing prosecution under Section 498-A in Hooghy District of West Bengal. The petitioners in Crl.P.Nos. 3905, 3906 and 3907 of 1998 are residents of Hyderabad and are facing prosecution launched by S.H.O., Kashmirigate Police Station, Delhi. The petitioners in Cri.P.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 vs. State, which was followed by this Court in Zaki Ishrati vs. Inspector (Customs) and V.R.S. Sai Surangini vs. Inspector of Police. The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir had struck a different note in Pradeep Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P., Mohan Singh vs. Commander of Police, Nezv Delhi and Ravinder Mo/wn vs. State of Punjab. When Criminal Petitions 4023 and 4024 came up before the learned single Judge, my learned brother Bilal Nazki, J. disagreed with the view taken by two learned Judges of this Court in Zaki Ishrati vs. Inspector (Customs) and V.R.S. Sai Surangani vs. Inspector of Police and referred the matter to a Division Bench. In view of the same, the other cases also came up before the Bench.