Subhash Chander Kher. vs Union of India and another

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 2166M, 1259M, 2479M, 3761M and 3787M of 1994.

On 30.4.1990, a case was registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that six consignments of Silver Bars weighing 15,600 kgs. were smuggled to India from Singapore. The petitioners who apprehend their arrest in connection with this case have moved these present petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner Subhash Chander, Dev Raj Behl, Kulbir Singh Narula and Ravinder Singh Bhasin, Vinod Sindhi and Seva Ram Saini allege themselves to be the residents of H.No. 66, The Mall, Ambala Cantt., 14/474 Hem Nagar, Sonepat, H.No. HIG 523, Sukhdev Nagar Colony, Jamalpur, Focal Point, Ludhiana and H.No. HE255A, Punjab State Housing Board Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, 252, Tripri Town, New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala and 776/19, Rohtak respectively.

The petitions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents mainly on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same as the offence was committed in Delhi and the petitioners were residing and carrying on their business at Delhi. Moreover the offence alleged to have been committed by them was serious.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the offence was committed in Delhi and only High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. S.K. Pipat and Mr. R.K. Handa placed reliance on Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 60 , Ravinder Mohan Bakhshi and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 410 and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1990 Criminal Law Journal, 2055. In this latter authority it was held that the petition for anticipatory bail would lie to Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed and not where offender resides and apprehends his arrest.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that as threat of deprivation of liberty of the petitioners has arisen in the States of Punjab and Haryana, so a part of cause of action has arisen in Punjab and Haryana and this Court has jurisdiction in the matter, irrespective of the fact that the offence was alleged to have been committed in Delhi. In support of his contention, the counsel placed reliance on Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Administration and others, 1991(1) C.C.Cases 39, N.K.Nayar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1985 Crl. L.J. 1887 and B.R. Sinha and others v. The State, 1982 Crl. L.J.61. In this letter case placing reliance on Gurbax Singh''s case reported as 1980 Crl. L.J. 1125(SC), it was observed that a High Court had a jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail of a petitioner who resides within the jurisdiction of High Court though he apprehends arrest in connection with a case which has been started outside the jurisdiction of that court.

In view of the authorities referred to by the counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view of that as the petitioners were alleged to have been residents of Ambala, Sonepat and Rohtak etc. this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications, as the real cause for making the application under section 438 is the contemplated arrest of the petitioners. If the arrest is likely to be effected within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the petitioner can avail the remedy of applying to that High Court for his pre arrest bail, even if the offence is committed in some other State.

As regards the merits of the case, I find that for the alleged occurrence which took place in 1989, case was registered in April, 1990 and the petitioners were not named as accused therein. During the investigation of the case, one Arvinder Khanna named the petitioners as coaccused. Premises of the petitioners were searched thereafter but nothing incriminating was recovered. The petitioners joined investigation conducted by the Customs Department in the year 1992 but no further action was taken. Their premises were also raided and searched by the C.B.I. but nothing incriminating recovered. The petitioners also joined investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police, Shri Anil Kumar of C.B.I. New Delhi on various dates, so it cannot be said to be a case where investigation is likely to be hampered, if concession of prearrest bail is granted to the petitioners. I, therefore, allow these petitions and direct the investigating officer to admit the petitioners to bail in the event of their arrest. The petitioners will, however, make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency. They will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not leave India without the prior permission of this Court.