Supreme Court Allows Anticipatory Bail Across States: High Courts and Sessions Courts Granted Authority

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan took the view that in the interest of justice, courts should provide limited interim protection while considering the liberty of citizens, subject to certain conditions.

On the adjudication rendered on Monday, the Supreme Court delineated that notwithstanding the origination of a complaint in a distinct jurisdiction, the competency of High Courts and Sessions Courts to confer anticipatory bail upon an accused remains intact. This pronouncement transpired within the context of the case denominated as Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka and Ors, with Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan presiding over the proceedings. The jurists expounded that, in deference to principles of equity, judiciously calibrated provisional protection should be afforded to individuals, mindful of their personal liberty, subject to specific stipulations.

The Court enunciated the ensuing criteria governing the dispensation of anticipatory bail in such instances:

1. A requisite protocol mandates the prompt notification of the Investigating Officer (IO) and pertinent investigative agency on the inaugural date of such protective measures.
2. The applicant must proffer a compelling case, substantiating an inability to resort to the ordinarily competent jurisdictional court, citing apprehensions pertaining to life and liberty.

The bench underscored the imperative for the court to meticulously scrutinize the spatial proximity to the locus of the case when adjudicating anticipatory bail matters. Additionally, a caveat was articulated cautioning against the practice of forum shopping, explicitly proscribing the traversal to another jurisdiction for the sole purpose of filing bail pleas absent cogent justifications.

The pivotal query addressed by the apex court pertained to the legitimacy of a court situated extraterritorially to the jurisdiction where the initial complaint was lodged in granting anticipatory bail. This quandary was precipitated by a March plea wherein a complainant, having filed an FIR in Rajasthan, saw the accused, her husband, granted anticipatory bail by a district judge in Bengaluru, the accusations involving dowry demands.

Senior Advocate K Paul, advocating on behalf of the woman, underscored the divergent judicial perspectives across various High Courts, prompting the Supreme Court to delineate a definitive legal stance. The plea, presented through the conduit of advocate Rishi Malhotra, remains poised for further developments.