BIDYA BHUAN MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is presently working as Director-General of Police, Home-guard and Fire Services, Cuttack has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in relation to Lalkothi (Rajasthan) Jaipur City P.S. Case No. 12 dated 10-1-2007 in the file of learned C.J.M., Jaipur City (Rajasthan) registered for commission of offences under Sections 120, 130, 216 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Allegation in the F. I. R. is that the son of the petitioner namely Bitihotra Mohanty after being convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was undergoing rigorous imprisonment in the Central Jail, Jaipur pursuant to the judgment dated 12-4-2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Alwar in S. C. No. 34 of 2006. On 12-9-2006 the petitioner submitted an application to the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police (Prisons), Rajasthan to release his son on parole for a period of 15 days on the ground of serious illness of his wife. Second application was filed on 9-10-2006 on the very same ground for grant of parole. On the basis of such petitions, an enquiry was made and recommendation was also made for release of the son of the petitioner on parole. On 20-11-2006 the petitioner was personally present before the Director-General of Prisons, Rajasthan Jaipur and submitted an application to the effect that during the period of parole, his son would reside in the house of Jagdish Prasad Mohanty, IAS, Divisional Commissioner, Kota at Jaipur. The Director-General of Prisons, Jaipur on examination of the records granted 15 days urgent parole on 20-11 -2006 with a direction that the son of the petitioner would execute a bail and surety bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the District Magistrate, Jaipur and during the period of parole apart from the abiding the general conditions of parole he would reside within territorial limit of Jaipur City in the house of Jagdish Prasad Mohanty. A further direction was also issued to the son of the petitioner to report to the police station at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur on every alternate day. Thereafter the son of the petitioner was released on parole for 15 days. Though the date of surrendering in the prison was on 4-12-2006, the son of the petitioner did not appear before the Jail authorities to undergo the remaining sentence and intimation in this regard was given by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur on 5-12-2006. Immediately thereafter steps were taken for arresting son of the petitioner but he was not found in the address where he was supposed to stay. While the matter stood thus, on 7-12-2006 the petitioner submitted another application before the Director-General of Prisons requesting for extension of the parole period by another 15 days. The said request was turned down on 8-12-2006. In spite of the above, the son of the petitioner did not surrender to custody and it is alleged in the F. I. R. that the petitioner was aware of the fact that after being released on parole his son would never surrender again to undergo the remaining sentence and with this motive he took his son on parole and as such committed the offences as alleged.

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate-General of the State of Rajasthan appearing for the opposite party No. 2 raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application before this Court on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State of Rajasthan (opposite party No. 2) drew attention of the Court to the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submitted that the anticipatory bail application has been filed solely on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of the State of Orissa and apprehends arrest within the State of Orissa. Learned Additional Advocate-General of Rajasthan State submitted that on these grounds an application for anticipatory bail cannot be maintained in this Court and the Court must have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offences were committed in order to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 438, Cr. P. C. It was further contended that none of the offences alleged in the F. I. R. had been committed within the State of Orissa and merely because the petitioner is a resident of Orissa or apprehends arrest within the State of Orissa will not be enough to confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the application. Learned counsel cited several decisions of the different High Courts in support of his contention which shall be dealt with later on. Shri Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application is maintainable before this Court since the petitioner apprehends arrest within the State of Orissa. Apart from the above, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the offences are alleged to have been committed in the State of Orissa and therefore this application is maintainable and can be entertained by this Court. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on several decisions of different High Courts in support of his contention.