BIMOD RANJAN SINHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE, three applications for anticipatory bail were taken up together for hearing as thee same point of law is involved in all these three cases. At the outset, it' may be said that all these applications are in connection with cases which have been started in the Courts outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the state by the learned Public prosecutor that this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications as the cases have been started in the Courts outside the jurisdiction, of this High Court. With regard to the merits, the learned Public Prosecutor states that besides the copies of the applications which have been served on him he has no other materials before him and as such he is very much handicapped in making Ms submissions with regard to the merits of the cases. Mr. Dutta who appears in the case of Binod ranjan Sinha and in the case of Gurdev singh and others submits that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not, in any way, restricted the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain applications in matters where criminal cases have been instituted against the petitioners in Courts outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) MR. Dutta contends that Sections 78, 80 and 81 confer power on a court to release on bail an accused who has been arrested in connector with a case outside the jurisdiction of that Court. If such Courts can entertain applications for bail and in proper cases can release an arrested person on bail, there is absolutely no reason why appropriate orders on an application for anticipatory bail cannot be made mr. Dutta very much relies on the principles of law enunciated by their lordships with regard to anticipatory bail in the case of Gurbaksh Sibba singh appellant v. The State of Punjab respondent reported in. A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 632. Mr. Dutta with much emphasis contends that their Lordships have not found any restriction in Section 438 which debars this Court from entertaining an application for anticipatory bail in connection with a case started in a Court outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest while granting such bail the' Court is required to see whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed as non-bailable, offence. It has been held in the Case of Gurbaksh singh that discretion has been left completely with the 'high , Court or the court of Session as these are superior courts. Of course, error, if any, committed by these Courts is liable to be corrected. The words "reason to believe" has been explained by their Lordships as the belief' that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. In this connection, it has been held that if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether the case has been made out for granting such relief.

(3.) MR. Dutta in support of his 'contention that this Court is quite within the jurisdiction to entertain the present applications submit that in a number of cases this Court from time to time has entertained such applications and has granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Dutta first refers to us the decision in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2680 of 1975 (Binode Kr. Chameria and others Vs. State of West Bengal in this case, on behalf of the learned d. L. R. an objection was taken that the court bad no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a case which arises outside the jurisdiction. In the case before their Lordships, the case was of katihar police station. Their Lordships P. C. Borooah and H. N. Sen, JJ held "according to us, 'high Court may mean the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed or within whose jurisdiction the petitioner's who apprehend arrest, reside. In this particular case, the present petitioners are residing within one jurisdiction and also have their office within the jurisdiction of this Court. " mr. Dutta next refers to the order passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 1977 (Hariprosad Agarwala alias Garodia v. State of West Bengal ). This order was also passed by a Division Bench consisting of Anil Kr. Sen and A. P. Bhattacharya, JJ. In this case, the petitioner apprehended that he might be arrested in connection with Porebandar Ranaver police station case. Their Lordships allowed the application and ordered that in the event of being arrested he would be released on bail. Mr. Dutta next refers to an order passed in two other cases namely, Criminal Case Nos. 871 and 872 of 1977 (K. K. Birla vs. The state ). The order was passed by a Division Bench consisting of A. N. Banerji and A. P. Bhattacharya, JJ. Twofold objections were raised before their lordships by the learned Public Prosecutor. Firstly, that the petitioner at the time of hearing of the application was away from India and that the case in connection with which the petitioner apprehended arrest was registered at delhi. Both the contentions were negatived and their Lordships held that the petitioner gave his residential address within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.