Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 290 (HP)

SANJEEV CHANDEL v. STATE OF H. P.

2002-10-10

M.R.VERMA

body2002
ORDER This application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the petitioner for grant of transitory anticipatory bail to him to enable him to surrender before the concerned Court at Srinagar for seeking appropriate legal redressal. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this application are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and is posted at Gund, District Anantnag, Srinagar, in Indo-Tibetan Border Police. Case FIR No. 101/2002 under Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code, has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Kangan, Srinagar on the allegations that the accused has kidnapped one Zamila. Petitioner claims that he has been falsely implicated in the said case. Presently, he is on leave and is residing at Theog within the jurisdiction of this Court and is apprehending his arrest. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of H. P. 4. One of the questions which arises for determination in this application is "whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present application whereas the case against the petitioner has been registered in a police station, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court? 5. A similar question arose before this Court in case Anil Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr. M.P.(M) No. 585 of 2001 decided on 24-5-2001).* In the said case, a case was registered against the petitioner therein under Section 498-A, IPC at Police Station, Jawalapur, Distt. Haridwar (Uttaranchal) outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the application for grant of interim anticipatory bail was moved in this Court on the ground that the petitioners were residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and were apprehending their arrest. Against this background, this Court held as under : *Reported in(2002)1 Chand LR(Civ and Cri)269(Him Pra) It cannot be disputed that arrest of an accused" is integral part of the investigation of a case". In a cognizable case the police official investigating the case has the powers to arrest even without a warrant. Against this background, this Court held as under : *Reported in(2002)1 Chand LR(Civ and Cri)269(Him Pra) It cannot be disputed that arrest of an accused" is integral part of the investigation of a case". In a cognizable case the police official investigating the case has the powers to arrest even without a warrant. In view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Code, a Police Officer is empowered to pursue the person accused of a cognizable offence in any place in India for the purpose of arresting him without a warrant, meaning thereby that he may arrest such accused in any part of the country. Therefore, to hold that a High Court within whose jurisdiction the accused apprehends his arrest, has no powers even to grant interim anticipatory bail to him if the offence is committed outside the jurisdiction of such High Court, will virtually amount to denial of his right to such anticipatory bail because in such an eventuality the accused will be exposed to arrest before he may reach such Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have been committed and which is competent to grant anticipatory bail. In my view, beneficial legislation must be construed and interpreted in an enabling manner and not in a disabling manner. The objection raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General when examined in view of the observations hereinabove seem to be unsustainable." 6. In view of the above view already taken by this Court, this Court can entertain an application for grant of interim bail to the accused to enable him to surrender before the Court having jurisdiction in a case wherein he is accused of the commission of offence committed outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. The next and the last question which calls for consideration is "whether the bail can be granted to the petitioner in the absence of the records of the case as might be maintained by the investigating agency?" 8. 7. The next and the last question which calls for consideration is "whether the bail can be granted to the petitioner in the absence of the records of the case as might be maintained by the investigating agency?" 8. In Anil Kapoors case (2002 (1) Chand LR (Civ and Cri) 269) (supra) while dealing with a similar question, this Court has held as under : "Since the accused have not prayed for regular anticipatory bail but have confined their prayer to grant them interim anticipatory bail to enable them to apply for anticipatory bail to the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place of the commission of offence, therefore, a considered opinion on merits and demerits of their case is not called and, therefore, for the stated limited prayer perusal of the record is not necessary which will have to be examined and considered by the concerned Court. For the purpose of passing an appropriate order on this application, the contents of the application, duly supported by affidavit of Chattar Singh, prima facie, disclose that the accused are residents of Nahan Town in District Sirmaur within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, that they are accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which is a cognizable offence and a case at the instance of the aggrieved party has been registered against them in Police Station Jawalapur in District Hardwar and they apprehend their arrest in the said case though they claim to be innocent." 9. In view of the above position in law, appropriate orders can be passed by this Court in the instant case, even in the absence of the records of the case. 10. In view of the above conclusions, this application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the police in case FIR No. 101/2002, under Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Kangan, Srinagar, during the period of 15 days from today, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned. It is, however, clarified that this order shall remain operative only for 15 days from today i.e. up to 25th of December, 2002, when it will be treated as automatically vacated and cancelled. Application allowed.