Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The learned counsel referring the above judgments also would contend unscrupulous litigants are not be allowed to venture to seek discretionary relief. The learned counsel would submit that in the petition, the petitioner has contended that the police have acted hastily and the same is totally misconceived despite the petitioner has given assurance that she would appear on 24.11.2020. An allegation is made that the Mumbai Police have rushed to Bengaluru to apprehend her. There was an apprehension to the Mumbai Police that while making the statement before the Mumbai Police on 18.11.2020, a categorical statement was made by this petitioner that she as having the habit of deleting chats and hence the same made the police to rush to Bengaluru. Learned counsel would also submit that though the petitioner has contended that an undertaking was given that she would appear and in the letter dated 19.11.2020 there was no such undertaking and only after the Mumbai Police have rushed to Bengaluru vide letter dated 20.11.2020 which was received at 16.50 hours. A specific date is mentioned that she would appear before Mumbai Police on 24.11.2020 and the conduct of the petitioner has also to be taken note of. The learned counsel also in the written submission contended that the offence committed in the State of Maharashtra, in these circumstances, the Cr.P.C. does not envisage filing of bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a different High Court. In this regard, attention of this Court was invited to the Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Syed Zafrul Hassan and another v. State reported in AIR 1986 Pat 194 (FB) and brought to the notice of this Court in paragraph 23 of the judgment and in the said judgment, the Patna High Court has held that Section 438 of Cr.P.C. does not permit the grant of anticipatory bail by any High Court or any Court of Session within the country where the accused may choose to apprehend arrest. Such a power vests only in the Court of Session or the High Court having jurisdiction over the locale of the commission of the offence of which the person is accused.

This Court considering the similar situation, exercised powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

24. The Apex Court also in the judgment in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. decided on 11.12.2017 with regard to exercising any powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., an observation was also made in a case of similar circumstances this Court would like to refer para No.9 of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

"9. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this incident had received wide coverage in the media, both electronic and print. In fact, it can be said that there was a trial by media, therefore, when the private respondents have directly approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory/interim bail under Section 438 of the Code, that too when the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, we cannot find any fault with the action of the private respondents."

26. This Court also would like to consider the judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra), the Apex Court considering Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and also in detail discussed with regard to exercising of powers under section 438 of Cr.P.C. keeping liberty of a person as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, scope of section 438 of Cr.P.C. and observed in paragraph-35 referring several judgments of the Apex Court that it is thus clear the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.

31. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the petition and the contentions raised with regard to granting of transit bail is concerned, already comes to conclusion that this Court can consider transit bail and the same also can be considered only in exceptional cases. It is also important to note that under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. both the Sessions Curt as well as the High Court has got concurrent power to entertain the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. There is no dispute to that effect.