In Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Ors [2023 0 INSC 1008], the Supreme Court held that Courts have the power to grant Transit Anticipatory Bail for an FIR registered outside their territorial jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, the Hon’ble Supreme Court warned the Courts to exercise the authority to grant Transit Anticipatory Bail judiciously and only in exceptional situations.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) does not explicitly provide for any provision of ‘transit anticipatory bail
In granting anticipatory bail, the court will have to consider the following conditions:
- Notice must be issued to the investigating officer and public prosecutor on the first hearing date, with the court having discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.
- The order granting Transit Anticipatory Bail should provide reasons for the applicant’s fear of inter-state arrest and consider its impact on the investigation.
- State level amendment to Section 438 of the CrPC, if it exists, should not exclude the offence from anticipatory bail jurisdiction where the cognizance of the offence has been taken.
- The applicant must satisfy the Court of their inability to seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional court where the offence is registered, citing reasons like immediate threats to life, bodily harm, violation of liberty, arbitrariness, or the applicant’s medical status or disability.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the present ruling may lead to a situation wherein an accused choose a court of his choice for seeking anticipatory bail based on convenience, leading to forum shopping. To prevent such misuse and uphold the importance of territorial jurisdiction under the CrPC, the Court emphasized the need for a clear territorial connection or proximity between the accused and the court approached for anticipatory bail. This connection can be established through factors like residence, occupation, or profession.
The accused cannot simply travel to another state solely for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court insists that the reasons for seeking bail outside the territorial jurisdiction of the FIR must be explicit, and there should be a credible threat or imminent apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence.
