Limited anticipatory bail can be sought in courts beyond FIR's territorial jurisdiction: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that an accused can seek limited anticipatory bail from the High Court or a sessions court beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a state where the FIR was lodged.

"Considering the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen’s right to life, personal liberty and dignity, the High Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court," a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The court set aside anticipatory bail granted by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru City to man and his family members in an FIR lodged out of a matrimonial dispute by his wife at Chirawa in Jhunjhunu district in Rajasthan. The bench said the Investigating Officer and the prosecutor were not issued notice by the court.

However, enunciating on the principle, the court said, in view of 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 fledged anticipatory bail could be sought from the competent court in the State in which the FIR is filed.

The bench also clarified the accused cannot travel to any other State only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail, in order to avoid forum shopping and abuse of the process of law as well as the court.

"Such 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 under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant," the bench said.

In Section 438 of CrPC, the bench said, the expression “the High Court” or “the Court of Session” is not restricted vis-à-vis the local limits or any particular territorial jurisdiction.