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 definitively explicated that the jurisdiction of High Courts and Sessions Courts to extend anticipatory bail transcends customary territorial confines. The pronouncement emanated from the adjudicative proceedings in the matter styled as Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka and Ors, presided over by the Honorable Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan. The learned jurists underscored the paramount application of equitable principles in according provisional protection to individuals, diligently securing their personal liberty, subject to stipulated conditions.
The delineated criteria for the grant of anticipatory bail in such instances are expounded as follows:
- The imperative observance of a procedural protocol mandating prompt notification of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the pertinent investigative agency upon the initiation of protective measures.
- The petitioner is obligated to proffer a compelling case, substantiating an incapacity to approach the ordinarily competent jurisdictional court, predicated upon apprehensions pertaining to life and liberty.
The bench, in its deliberations, emphasized the judicious scrutiny requisite for courts to assess the geographical proximity vis-à-vis the locus of the case when adjudicating anticipatory bail petitions. Additionally, a categorical directive was enunciated against forum shopping, expressly proscribing the practice of traversing to an alternate jurisdiction absent cogent justifications.
The seminal inquiry 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 conundrum arose from a plea filed in March, wherein the complainant, having lodged a First Information Report (FIR) in Rajasthan, witnessed the accused, her husband, obtaining anticipatory bail from a district judge in Bengaluru, involving allegations of dowry demands.
Senior Advocate K Paul, representing the complainant, underscored the disparate judicial perspectives prevalent across various High Courts, thereby necessitating the articulation of a definitive legal stance by the Supreme Court. The plea, advanced through the conduit of advocate Rishi Malhotra, awaits subsequent developments in due course.
