Conditions For Transit Anticipatory Bail In FIRs Registered In Other States : Supreme Court Explains

In a significant and groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court has held that High Courts and Sessions Court have power to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail even when the First Information Report (FIR) has been registered in another State.

 The Court finally set aside the judgment of Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan and the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Sadhan Chandra Kolay to the extent that they hold that the High Court does not possess jurisdiction to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail i.e., even a limited or transit anticipatory bail.

The Court laid down the conditions for the grant of limited anticipatory bail as follows-

• Notice to Investigating Officer and Public Prosecutor: Before passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor involved in the FIR must be issued notice on the first day of the hearing. The court retains discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail in appropriate cases.
• Reasoned Order: The order granting limited anticipatory bail must provide detailed reasons explaining why the applicant fears an inter-state arrest and the potential impact of such protection on the ongoing investigation.
• Offence not excluded from scope of anticipatory bail by state amendment: Jurisdiction Clarification: The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Section 438 of CrPC.
• Grounds to be pleaded: The applicant seeking anticipatory bail must convince the court of their inability to seek relief from the court with territorial jurisdiction. Grounds for such requests may include immediate threats to life, violations of personal liberty, arbitrary actions, or medical status/disability.
• Only in Exceptional and compelling Circumstances: The power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail is reserved for exceptional and compelling circumstances. The court emphasizes that this authority should only be exercised when the denial of such relief would cause irreparable harm to the applicant.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an SLP against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bangalore which had allowed the extraterritorial bail petition by the accused husband. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Apex Court in an SLP.

The Court began by tracing the origins of the word 'transit,' revealing that it is derived from the Latin word 'transitus,' signifying passage from one place to another.

Challenges in Cross-Jurisdictional Arrests: Need for transit remand

The issue is complicated in cases where the arrest is made beyond the place/jurisdiction where the offense is registered. The court acknowledged the power granted to the police under the CrPC to pursue an accused in other jurisdictions. Upon such arrest, the police has to secure a transit remand.

The Court observed, “Thus, the police is obligated to secure a transit remand of the accused for taking him from the place where he is arrested to the place where the crime is registered, for production before the competent magistrate in terms of the requirement of Article 22.”

Legal Innovation: 'Transit Anticipatory Bail' as a Remedial Measure

The judgment proposed 'transit anticipatory bail' as a necessary legal innovation to address the complexities arising from cross-jurisdictional arrests.

The court opined “From this from the aforesaid requirement of transit remand, has arisen the necessity of 'transit anticipatory bail' for, an affected person cannot be without a remedy.

Case title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996

Click here to read the judgment