Spread the love
PRIYA INDORIA V/S THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS, 2023
CITATIONCrl.A. No. 3549-3552 ( arising out of SLP 11423-11426) 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT20th NOVEMBER, 2023
COURTSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANTPRIYA INDORIA
RESPONDENTSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
BENCHJustice Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Mr. Ujjal Bhuyan

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Priya Indoria Vs the State of Karnataka & Ors, 2023” revolves around a critical legal dispute concerning the concept of the interpretation and application of section 438 Cr.P.C. and examines the situation where the anticipatory bail is sought in a jurisdiction other than the place where FIR has been lodged. The judgment in this case sheds light on the interpretation and application of relevant legal provisions and principles, influencing future legal proceedings concerning the constitutional importance of protecting individual rights in the Indian legal framework.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant/appellant-wife got married to the accused-husband on December 11, 2020, as per Hindu rituals and rites and then they started living in Bengaluru. The accused-husband filed a divorce petition in November 2021 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. But further to this, the appellant filed a transfer of divorce petition from Bengaluru to the Court of Additional District Judge in Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Simultaneously, the appellant-wife filed a complaint that she was a victim of harassment, torture and physical assault for the dowry demand against the accused- husband and his family member. The appellant- wife was forced to leave the matrimonial house on June 2, 2021 because the dowry demands were not fulfilled by her family. However, the appellant-wife emphasised that the alleged significant amount was spent during her wedding on complying with the demands of the accused-husband and his family members. Still, the alleged demands continued after the marriage, and the accused-husband refused to consummate the marriage on the account of non fulfilment of the dowry demand causing the appellant physical and mental torture. This did not stop even when the appellant-wife was suffering on the pretext of being COVID-19 positive. The accused-husband and his family allegedly continued to threaten her over calls and video calls even after she left her matrimonial home and all the pleas from her father were rejected to take her back into the matrimonial house. An FIR (First Information Report) was filed by an appellant-wife at the Chirawa police station, Rajasthan on January 25, 2022. Which led to an investigation under sections 498A, 323, and 406 of IPC.

The Appeal has been filed by the complainant-wife for the reversal of the grant of anticipatory bail order dated July 7, 2022, by the Additional City Civil and Session Judge in Bengaluru to the accused-husband and his family. The complaint was filed in Chiwara police station, Rajasthan and the accused- husband and his family were charged under sections 498A, 323, and 406 of IPC but the anticipatory bail was granted to them by the Bengaluru Court.

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the High Court or the Court of Session have the authority to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P. C. when the FIR has been registered outside its jurisdiction?
  2. Whether the practice of granting transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to allow an applicant seeking anticipatory bail to apply before competent jurisdiction is consistent with the administration of criminal justice?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

  1. The appellant contended about the territorial jurisdiction in the present matter as the cause of action has arisen at multiple places leading to having multiple jurisdictions for this matter. It has been argued that section 438 of Cr. P.C. does not explicitly specify whether the High Court or the Court of Session, with power to grant anticipatory bail, should be the same court that takes cognizance of the matter or any High court or session court across the country. It leads to ambiguity of legislative guidance in the issue of granting extra-territorial anticipatory bail.
  2. Further, it is being argued that anticipatory bail and transit bail are different from each other. The latter is granted for a specific period until the anticipatory bail application is made before the court which takes cognizance of the matter.
  3. Reference has been made to various precedents, such as the case of Amar Nath Neogi Vs State of Jharkhand and the State of Assam Vs Brojen Gogol, where the “transit anticipatory bail” approach was adopted. Additionally, the case of Nathu Singh Vs State of UP was cited to show that liberal interpretation to grant anticipatory bail, has a valuable impact on the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
  4. It was highlighted that the right to fair trial and impartial investigation is a must for both the parties and further argument took place on this key point itself. The appellant raised concerns about the court in Bengaluru granting bail for an FIR lodged beyond its territorial jurisdiction, as because of this the appellant-wife did not get an opportunity to challenge the bail decision and even during the hearing only the Public Prosecutor from Bengaluru was present, lacking a crucial point of fair evaluation. Due to this lack of assistance and chance to present their side, setting aside impugned orders related to the grant of anticipatory bail is a must to uphold justice.
  5. It was argued and major reliance was made on the crucial role of territorial jurisdiction in the administration of justice. Even precedent was referred to focus on the fact that the cognizance is taken of offense, not the offender. The contention is made that the power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P. C.  is reserved for High Court and Session court with territorial jurisdiction. The interpretation of the word ‘the’ is discussed to analyze competent jurisdiction.
  6. The appellant proposes to safeguards for granting interim protection, residence proof, disclosure of reasons for granting bail, not in the same place of residence then proof or the reason for being at that particular place and advance notification to the public prosecutor along with all this must comply with section 438 of Cr. P.C. The alternative relief of transit anticipatory bail and interim protection was suggested, to strike the balance between Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d) and curtail forum shopping.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

  1. The counsel for the State of Karnataka acknowledges the relevance of judicial precedents on section 438 of Cr.P.C. and is willing to accept the appropriate order given based on legal consideration.
  2. Further in the argument from the respondent it was contended that the FIR filed by the appellant-wife is frivolous and all the allegations against the accused-husband and his family are false. Even claims were put across that the motive of the appellant-wife was to extort money from the accused- husband and his family, quoting the demand to be of 50,00,000 (fifty lakhs only) which was refused by them.
  3. Stressed that the urgency to get anticipatory bail was to protect him from the immediate arrest and that his liberty was at risk because there was reasonable apprehension of arrest and the main reason to files an application before the Bengaluru Court. During COVID-19 there were threats of arrest from the appellant-wife. Even emphasis was put on that the accused-husband is the sole breadwinner for the family and responsible for supporting his younger brother and elderly, ailing father.
  4. It was even pointed out that the delay in filing the complaint from the end of the appellant- wife and her father having influential local contacts in Chirawa, Rajasthan, where the FIR was lodged putting speculation on the investigation.
  5. Further, it was emphasised how after filing an FIR the Chirawa Police Station harassed the accused-husband and his family, pointing out the intention to file a complaint there, despite the alleged offense occurring in Bengaluru and the appellant’s familiarity with the place as she had previously worked there.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court applied the view of Rupali Devi Vs. the State of UP, held that the impugned order issued by the Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru, has to be set aside as it did not take note of respondent no. 2 on the criminal miscellaneous application. In the interest of justice, the court directed not to take any coercive steps for four weeks against the accused as this period is provided for an accused to approach the jurisdictional court of Chirawa or the High Court of Rajasthan, for anticipatory bail. It was to grant a form of interim protection to uphold justice. Additionally, the court directed that if the application under section 438 of Cr. P. C. is placed before the Session Court of Chirawa or the High Court of Rajasthan, that application must be dealt expeditiously and on their own merits. It was held that Courts have the power to grant transit anticipatory bail for an FIR registered outside its jurisdiction, but they must exercise this judiciously and only in exceptional circumstances.

ANALYSIS

  1. The apex court in its judgement emphasised the importance of defining the reason and offence/offences for which anticipatory bail is being granted and even avoiding any unnecessary restrictions on section 438 of Cr.P. C.
  2. The term “court of competent jurisdiction” has been invoked in section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and underscore section 177, accentuating that the offenses should typically be adjudicated by the court in whose local jurisdiction the offense occurred.
  3. The textual discussion came into the picture when the court discussed the relevant sections of Cr.P. C., such as section 2(e) “High Court”, section 2 (j) “local jurisdiction”, Section 14, 9, 41A, 167(2), 156, 177, 179 and 438.
  4. The critical analysis of section 438 of Cr.P. C. and the concept of anticipatory bail was undergone through various cases such as Sushila Aggarwal, Nathu Singh, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, and law commission reports but eventually, higher reliance was put upon the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia as anticipatory bail is to protect one from potential misuse of the criminal justice system.
  5. The concept of “transit anticipatory bail” is introduced as an interim protection for the limited duration until the accused gets an opportunity to reach a competent jurisdiction court to get full-fledged anticipatory bail.
  6. The court has put certain conditions to be complied with before granting Transit Anticipatory Bail and those are the following:
  1. Notice must be issued to the investigating officer and public prosecutor where the FIR has been lodged.
  2. The order granting transit anticipatory bail should provide genuine reason that the accused have reasonable apprehension of arrest.
  3. State Amendment to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. should not exclude the offence from anticipatory bail jurisdiction where the cognizance of the offence has been taken.
  4. The applicant need to convince the court his inability to go before the court where the offense has been registered to obtain anticipatory bail.
  1. The Court of Session and High court, can exercise its jurisdiction to entertain pleas for transit anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been lodged in its jurisdiction, depending on the circumstances of the case.
  2. The safeguard guidelines for interim protection bail and curtailing forum shopping was also highlighted , in order to protect the rights of the parties.
  3. The attempt was made to strike the balance between the criminal justice administration and personal rights of the individual. Position of overseas laws were also looked into to understand the matter at hand and its constitutionality.
  4. The legal provisions related to the jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Session was dealt with, and highlighted the need for a constitutional basis for evolving concept of transit anticipatory bail.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case of Priya Indoria Vs The State of Karnataka & Ors, 2023, establishes a crucial legal precedent about anticipatory bail and section 438 of Cr. P. C. The Hon’ble Supreme court has recognized the significance of safeguarding the individual’s liberty by introducing the concept of Transit Anticipatory Bail. The court cannot deny this bail solely based on of jurisdiction conflict as it will defeat the principle to access of justice. This judgement protects the interest of justice by providing the individual to take transit anticipatory bail from the local High Court or Court of Session where they are residing and grants protection while traveling to the state where the FIR has been registered to take full-fledged anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or the High Court.

REFERENCES

  1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/7943/7943_2023_14_1501_48299_Judgement_20-Nov-2023.pdf
  2. www.lexology.com
  3. https://updates.manupatra.com/newsroom/contentsummary.aspx?iid=44486&text=

This Article is written by Saumya Raj student of ILS Law College, Pune; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *