Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka has held that the Sessions Court or High Court that would have the power to grant transit anticipatory bail, even when the First Information Report (FIR) has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction but in a different State.

What was the Background of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The complainant (wife) got married to the accused (husband) on 11^th December 2020 and started living in Bengaluru.
• The complainant was a victim of harassment, torture and assault for the demand of dowry and this harassment and torture continued from 11th December 2020 until 06th July 2021.
• Thereafter, on 11th June 2021, the complainant’s father was forced to bring the complainant back to Chirawa, Rajasthan.
• The complainant registered a FIR for offences punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Thereafter the accused and his family members sought the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, allowed the applications of anticipatory bail made by the accused and his family members.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• The SC granted extraterritorial anticipatory bail to the accused and his family members.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
• The Court further states that if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail.
• The Court also held that if the transit bail application is rejected on the sole ground of territorial jurisdiction, it will add a restriction to the powers under Section 438 of CrPC. This would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice.

What is Transit Anticipatory Bail?

• About:
  • In this type of bail, the accused can be protected from arrest until they reach a court with territorial jurisdiction for the alleged offence.
  • The phrase transit anticipatory bail is not defined under the CrPC or under any other legislation.
  • The SC had adopted the transit anticipatory bail approach in the case of State of Assam v. Brojen Gogol (1998).
  • It provides equitable and interim relief enabling an accused residing in a different State to seek anticipatory bail.
  • This is granted for a specific time period, until an applicant can make an application for anticipatory bail before a Court that can take cognizance of the offence.
• Conditions for Transit Anticipatory Bail:
  • The Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor shall be issued notice by the court before the passing of the order of limited anticipatory bail, and the court would have discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.
  • The order of grant must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of interim anticipatory bail as the case may be on the status of investigation.
  • The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offense from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a state amendment to section 438 CrPC.
  • The applicant must satisfy the court, regarding his inability to seek such bail from the court having territorial jurisdiction.
  • The grounds raised may be a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty, and bodily harm, the jurisdiction where FIR is registered, the apprehension of violation of the right to life liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness, the medical status or disability of person seeking extra-territorial limited anticipatory bail.
• Case Laws:
  • In Amita Garg v. State of UP (2022), the Allahabad High Court noted that there is no legislation or law which defines transit anticipatory bail in definitive or specific terms. The said Court explained that the transit anticipatory bail precedes detention of the accused and is effective immediately at the time of the arrest.
  • In Ajay Agarwal v. The State of UP (2022), the Allahabad High Court noted that transit bail is protection from arrest for a certain definite period as granted by the Court granting such transit bail.