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.
In a recent adjudication, the Supreme Court authoritatively expounded that the competence of High Courts and Sessions Courts to extend anticipatory bail transcends territorial jurisdictional confines. This judicial pronouncement emanated from the case titled Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka and Ors, under the auspices of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan. The jurists underscored the imperative application of equitable principles in affording provisional protection to individuals, conscientiously safeguarding their personal liberty, contingent upon specified conditions.
The delineated criteria for the grant of anticipatory bail in such instances are elucidated as follows:
- Mandated adherence to a procedural protocol necessitating expeditious notification of the Investigating Officer (IO) and pertinent investigative agency upon initiation of protective measures.
- The petitioner must proffer a compelling case, substantiating an incapacity to approach the ordinarily competent jurisdictional court, predicated upon apprehensions pertaining to life and liberty.
The bench underscored the judicious scrutiny requisite for courts to assess geographical proximity concerning the locus of the case when adjudicating anticipatory bail petitions. Additionally, a cautionary directive was enunciated against forum shopping, categorically proscribing the practice of traversing to an alternate jurisdiction absent cogent justifications.
The seminal query addressed by the apex court pertained to the legitimacy of a court extrinsic to the jurisdiction wherein the initial complaint was lodged, granting anticipatory bail. This quandary arose from a March plea wherein the complainant, having lodged an FIR in Rajasthan, witnessed the accused, her husband, obtaining anticipatory bail from a district judge in Bengaluru, implicating allegations of dowry demands.
Senior Advocate K Paul, representing the complainant, accentuated the disparate judicial perspectives across various High Courts, thereby propelling the Supreme Court to articulate a definitive legal stance. The plea, presented through the conduit of advocate Rishi Malhotra, awaits subsequent developments in due course.
