SUBHASH CHANDER KHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 2166-M, 1259-M, 2479-M, 3761-M and 3787-M of 1994. On 30.4.1990, a case was registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that six consignments of Silver Bars weighing 15,600 kgs. were smuggled to India from Singapore. The petitioners who apprehend their arrest in connection with this case have moved these present petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner Subhash Chander, Dev Raj Behl, Kulbir Singh Narula and Ravinder Singh Bhasin, Vinod Sindhi and Seva Ram Saini allege themselves to be the residents of H.No. 66, The Mall, Ambala Cantt., 14/474 Hem Nagar, Sonepat, H.No. HIG 523, Sukhdev Nagar Colony, Jamalpur, Focal Point, Ludhiana and H.No. HE-255-A, Punjab State Housing Board Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, 252, Tripri Town, New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala and 776/19, Rohtak respectively.

(2.) THE petitions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents mainly on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same as the offence was committed in Delhi and the petitioners were residing and carrying on their business at Delhi. Moreover the offence alleged to have been committed by them was serious.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the respondents that the offence was committed in Delhi and only High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. S.K. Pipat and Mr. R.K. Handa placed reliance on Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 60, Ravinder Mohan Bakhshi and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 410 and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1990 Criminal Law Journal, 2055. In this latter authority it was held that the petition for anticipatory bail would lie to Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed and not where offender resides and apprehends his arrest.