Summary
The Supreme Court held that a High Court or Sessions Court may exceptionally grant limited transit anticipatory bail for an FIR registered outside its territory, enabling access to the competent court. The power requires safeguards against forum shopping and does not authorise full anticipatory bail for the out-of-State FIR. The Bengaluru orders were set aside, with four weeks’ protection to approach the jurisdictional court in Rajasthan.
Issues
- Whether Section 438 CrPC permits limited protection against arrest for an FIR registered outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
- What conditions prevent forum shopping while preserving liberty and access to justice.
- Whether the Bengaluru court’s full anticipatory-bail orders could stand.
Provisions considered
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The expression High Court or Court of Session does not impose an absolute territorial bar on limited transit protection, but full anticipatory bail must be sought before the competent court in the FIR State. Exceptional relief requires the specified safeguards. (¶¶ 9.5–9.6, 24–31, 35–46)
- Articles 14, 21 and 39A, Constitution of IndiaPersonal liberty and effective, accessible justice supported a limited protective remedy while preserving fair investigation and the statutory territorial scheme. (¶¶ 21–23, 26–31, 34–37, 45–46)
- Sections 177–179, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The ordinary territorial framework for inquiry and trial was distinguished from temporary protection against apprehended arrest outside the FIR State. (¶¶ 9.4, 31, 39–46, 48–49)
- Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applying Rupali Devi, continuing consequences of matrimonial cruelty and alleged threats at the parental home could, depending on the facts, support jurisdiction there. (¶ 48–49)
Held
- An absolute refusal of limited protection solely because the FIR was registered elsewhere would impose an unwritten restriction on Section 438 and could deny meaningful access to justice. The power addresses apprehended arrest, distinct from jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the offence. (¶¶ 24–31, 35–36, 44–46)
- Transit protection is exceptional and temporary, enabling an approach to the competent court for full anticipatory bail. The applicant must show compelling circumstances in which denial would cause irremediable prejudice; it is not an entitlement to choose any court across India. (¶¶ 36–37, 39–46)
- Notice must issue on the first hearing date to the investigating officer and public prosecutor handling the FIR, subject to discretion to grant interim protection in an appropriate case. The order must explain the apprehended inter-State arrest and its impact on investigation. (¶ 36(i)–(ii))
- The remedy must not circumvent a State amendment excluding the offence from anticipatory bail. The applicant must explain inability to approach the jurisdictional court, such as an immediate threat to liberty or bodily safety, arbitrary impediments or medical disability. (¶ 36(iii)–(iv))
- There must be a genuine territorial connection through residence, work, occupation or legitimate presence, with explicit reasons for seeking relief away from the FIR jurisdiction and a real apprehension of arrest. Travel solely to secure a preferred court’s order is impermissible. (¶¶ 39–41, 44–45)
- Contrary Patna and Calcutta decisions were disapproved to the extent they denied even limited extra-territorial or transit anticipatory-bail jurisdiction. The Court left the separate problem of multiple FIRs in several States unanswered. (¶¶ 38, 47)
- Depending on the factual situation, the place where a wife takes shelter can have jurisdiction over cruelty whose adverse effects continue there. Here alleged threats and harassment after return to Chirawa supported that possibility; the allegations were not adjudicated as proved facts. (¶¶ 3, 48–49)
- The Bengaluru orders granting full protection without notice to the Rajasthan investigating officer and prosecutor could not stand. Four weeks’ protection was granted solely to enable applications before the competent Rajasthan courts, which would decide them on their own merits. (¶ 49)
Result
Appeals allowed and Bengaluru anticipatory-bail orders set aside. No coercive steps against the accused for four weeks to enable approach to the jurisdictional court in Chirawa, Rajasthan. Applications to the Sessions Court there or Rajasthan High Court to be decided expeditiously on their own merits.