High Courts, Sessions Courts Can Grant Anticipatory Bail To Accused Even If FIR Registered In Another State: SC
"High Courts and Sessions Courts can grant anticipatory bail to accused even if FIR is registered in another State", along with relevant case laws and legal reasoning — all without any external links.
🔹 Key Issue
Whether a High Court or Sessions Court in one State can grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest in a criminal case registered in another State?
🔹 Supreme Court’s Ruling – Summary
The Supreme Court of India has held that:
An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be entertained by a court even if the FIR is registered in another State, provided the accused can justify a real apprehension of arrest within the jurisdiction of the court approached.
This broadens the scope of Section 438 CrPC and aligns with the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
🔹 Legal Provisions Involved
🔸 Section 438, CrPC – Anticipatory Bail
Provides that a person who has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence may apply to the High Court or Court of Session for anticipatory bail.
No territorial limitation is expressly placed under Section 438, which opens the door for cross-jurisdictional interpretation.
🔹 Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning
1. No Territorial Restriction in Section 438
The SC observed that CrPC does not expressly prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail by a court located outside the State where the FIR was lodged.
2. Doctrine of Reasonable Apprehension
What matters is “reasonable apprehension of arrest”, and if the accused genuinely fears arrest while they are in a different State, they should not be left remediless.
3. Safeguarding Personal Liberty
Article 21 guarantees protection of personal liberty. Interpreting Section 438 narrowly would defeat this fundamental right.
4. Comity of Courts
While inter-State jurisdiction should be respected, it cannot override fundamental rights. The courts should act judiciously to prevent misuse but not deny jurisdiction solely because of location of FIR.
🔹 Important Case Law
✅ Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1
A Constitution Bench held that anticipatory bail does not automatically end at the time of charge sheet or filing of FIR. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting anticipatory bail laws liberally to protect liberty.
✅ Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670
Held that anticipatory bail can be granted even when FIR is lodged in another State, subject to appropriate conditions, and with full respect to federal structure and comity of courts.
✅ Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
The Court reaffirmed that liberty is not a gift of the State but a fundamental right under Article 21, and anticipatory bail is part of that protection.
🔹 Conditions and Safeguards Suggested by the Court
The SC clarified that such cross-border anticipatory bail should not become a tool for forum-shopping. So, it laid down some precautions:
Accused must show real apprehension of arrest within the jurisdiction of the court approached.
The court may grant interim protection and direct the accused to apply before the competent court where the FIR is lodged.
Bail orders must not hinder investigation; police of the FIR-State must be informed.
The court may impose stringent conditions, including requiring the accused to cooperate in the investigation.
🔹 Practical Implications
This ruling ensures pan-India protection of liberty.
Prevents harassment by registering FIRs in distant States to trouble individuals.
However, courts must be vigilant against abuse of cross-State bail applications to delay proceedings.
🔹 Conclusion
The Supreme Court has clarified that:
Courts are not territorially barred from granting anticipatory bail merely because the FIR is registered in another State.
As long as the accused reasonably apprehends arrest and meets the conditions of Section 438, they can approach the Sessions or High Court within whose jurisdiction they reside or where the threat of arrest looms, subject to judicial scrutiny and balance of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments