Delhi HC: Bipolar Disorder Alone Does Not Qualify as Medical Disability Without Benchmark Criteria  ||  Kerala HC: Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics For Marrying Outside the Community is Unconstitutional  ||  Kerala HC: Temporary Use of Religious Land For Public Infrastructure is Not a ‘Transfer’ under Law  ||  P&H HC: Habeas Plea in Child Custody Case Not Maintainable if Child is With Natural Guardian and Safe  ||  Delhi HC: Illegal Termination Does Not Automatically Entitle Employee to Reinstatement or Back Wages  ||  Gujarat High Court: Forcing Toddler to Attend Court 6 Hours Weekly For Grandfather Visits is Unjust  ||  Supreme Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Plea, Directs Timely Resolution of Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Review on Solatium Retrospectivity, Bars Reopening Settled Claims  ||  SC: Excise Duty Exemptions Based on Intended Use Must be Construed Liberally For Assessee  ||  Supreme Court: DSC Personnel Eligible For Second Pension; Allows Condonation of Shortfall    

Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Ors (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1008) - (Supreme Court) (20 Nov 2023)

Accused must apply for anticipatory bail in the State where the FIR has been lodged.

MANU/SC/1246/2023

Criminal

The facts giving rise to the present appeal is that the complainant was who is a victim of harassment, torture, assault and demand of dowry and was thrown out of the matrimonial home which is located in Bengaluru. Due to these circumstances the complainant left for Chirawa, Rajasthan her parental home from where she filed the FIR against the accused and other family members mentioning that the accused at present is giving her death threats. Learned Session Judge, Bengaluru had granted anticipatory bail to the accused and other family members, which was upheld by High Court. Hence, the present appeal was filed by the Complainant.

The questions that arise are: (i) Whether the application seeking anticipatory bail moved by the accused party is maintainable or not, if the same is filed before Court of another State, while the FIR is lodged by the aggrieved party is lodged in another State where the complainant is living; (ii) Whether the ordinary place of inquiry and trial would include the place where the complainant-wife resides after being separated from her husband.

So far as first question related to jurisdiction of grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, the Court observed that on a reading of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, It was not found that the expression "the High Court" or "the Court of Session" is restricted vis-à-vis the local limits of any particular territorial jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that if an FIR is lodged in one State then the Accused can approach the Court in another State for seeking anticipatory bail. This can only be done if at the time of lodging of the FIR in any State, the accused is residing or is present there for a legitimate purpose in the other State. At the same time, the Accused cannot seek full-fledged anticipatory bail in a State where he is a resident when the FIR has been registered in a different State. However, the accused would be entitled to seek a transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in the State where he is a resident which necessarily has to be of a limited duration so as to seek regular anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Coming to the second question, the position of law regarding the ordinary place of investigation and trial as per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially in matrimonial cases alleging cruelty and domestic violence, is that, if none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction, that jurisdiction cannot be the ordinary place of investigation and trial of a matrimonial offence. However, as observed in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., MANU/SC/0499/2019, the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would depending on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

In the case at hand, the view of Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., MANU/SC/0499/2019 has been applied as the complainant claims to have received death threats and harassment over phone, even after her return to her parental house in Rajasthan. Thus, the ordinary place of trial may be Rajasthan. However in the present case, the accused have been granted extra territorial anticipatory bail without issuing notice to the investigating officer and public prosecutor in Chirawa Police Station, Rajasthan wherein the Appellant had lodged the FIR. Hence, the Court while setting aside the impugned orders of the Sessions Judge, Bangaluru directed that no coercive steps may be taken against the Accused for the next four weeks, to enable them to approach the jurisdictional Court in Chirawa, Rajasthan for anticipatory bail.

Tags : ANTICIPATORY BAIL   TRANSITORY ANTICIPATORY BAIL   TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved