PRIYA INDORIA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 20-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 525 : 2023 INSC 1008
525
CASE DETAILS
PRIYA INDORIA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal No. 003549-003552/2023 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 20, 2023
[B. V. NAGARATHNA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the power of the High Court or the 
Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC could be exercised 
with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the 
said Court; and whether the practice of granting transit anticipatory bail or 
interim protection to enable an applicant seeking anticipatory bail to make 
an application u/s 438 CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction is 
consistent with the administration of criminal justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Extra-territorial 
anticipatory bail – Power of the High Court or the Court of Session 
to grant u/s 438 CrPC, if could be exercised with respect to an FIR 
registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court:
Held: An interpretation giving rise to an absolute bar on the jurisdiction 
of a Court of Session or a High Court to grant interim anticipatory bail 
for an off ence committed outside the territorial confi nes of a High Court 
or Court of Session may lead to an anomalous and unjust consequence 
for bona fi de applicants who may be victims of wrongful, mala fi de or 
politically motivated prosecution – In such circumstances, the Courts must 
balance the interest of the accused in the context of the salutary principle 
of access to justice which is a facet of Art. 21 of the Constitution as well as 
a Directive Principle of State Policy-Art. 39(A) as also Art. 14 – Power to 
grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional 
and compelling circumstances only which means where, denying transit 
anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an 
application u/s 438 before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause 
irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant – Having regard 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
to the salutary concept of access to justice, the accused can seek limited 
transit anticipatory bail or limited interim protection from the Court in the 
State in which he resides but in such an event, a ‘regular’ or full-fl edged 
anticipatory bail could be sought from the competent Court in the State 
in which the FIR is fi led – This may also lead the accused to choose the 
Court of his choice for seeking anticipatory bail – Thus, in order to avoid 
the abuse of the process of the Court as well as the law by the accused, it is 
necessary for the Court before which the plea for anticipatory bail is made, 
to ascertain the territorial connection or proximity between the accused and 
the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which is approached for seeking such 
relief. [Paras 26, 34, 37, 39, 40]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Direction for grant 
of bail to person apprehending arrest – Grant of transit anticipatory 
bail or interim protection to enable an applicant seeking anticipatory 
bail to make an application u/s 438 CrPC before a Court of competent 
jurisdiction, if consistent with the administration of criminal justice:
Held: Accused cannot seek full-fl edged anticipatory bail in a State 
where he is a resident when the FIR has been registered in a diff erent State 
– However, he 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 – Need for such a provision 
is to secure the liberty of the individual concerned – Since anticipatory 
bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal 
liberty Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and since the concept of access 
to justice is extended to such a situation and bearing in mind Art 14 thereof 
it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving 
provision of transit anticipatory bail – Otherwise, in a deserving case, 
there is likelihood of denial of personal liberty as well as access to justice 
for, by the time the person concerned approaches the Court of competent 
jurisdiction to seek anticipatory bail, it may well be too late as he may be 
arrested – If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is 
made solely with r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.