CRM No. M-13716 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-13716 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.05.2011 Parminder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is moved by the accused/husband seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.124 dated 31.8.2010 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, P.S. Division No.2, Ludhiana. Admittedly, petitioner/husband has acquired citizenship of Sweden and is in Sweden as on day. He has not arrived in India. Petitioner is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor is available within the territory of India. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since petitioner is intending to return to India and is apprehending his arrest on arrival to India, therefore, anticipatory bail application may be entertained. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the face of it is mis-conceived. As on day petitioner is in Sweden. CRM No. M-13716 of 2011 (O&M) -2- No ticket or material has been produced to show that petitioner is intending to come to India. Learned counsel, on being asked as to when petitioner is intending to return to India, is not able to reply. He submitted that after obtaining bail, petitioner may come to India. Admittedly, petitioner is having passport of Sweden. He has not shown his bona fide to state the time and date of his return. Anticipatory bail can be entertained by the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction accused is residing and apprehending his arrest or by the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence is committed and investigation/trial is pending and accused is available to join the investigation/trial. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration and others, 1991 Cr.L.J. 950(1) has observed in para 22 as under: - “A bare perusal of the Section reveals that no restriction for grant of anticipatory bail have been imposed in S.438(i) for exercise of jurisdiction by that High Court or Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. On the other hand, such High Court or Court of Session has been conferred jurisdiction to exercise such power. It is no doubt true that the High Court or the Court of Session within whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed and within whose jurisdiction offence ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court shall also have the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. But this does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail where a person has reason to believe that he would be arrested in connection with non-bailable offence. S.438(1) is wide enough to confer jurisdiction not only to the High Court or the Court of Session within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed and is to be enquired into and tried but also the High Court or the Court of Session where a person has CRM No. M-13716 of 2011 (O&M) -3- reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with the commission of non-bailale offence. By taking away the jurisdiction from the High Court or the Court of Session for the grant of anticipatory bail within its territorial jurisdiction in respect of a person who may be arrested in connection within non-bailable offence would be reading certain words in the section which are not to be found therein. At the cost of repetition no restriction whatsoever has been placed for exercise of power by the High Court or the Court of Session for the grant of anticipatory bail within whose territorial jurisdiction is a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with non-bailable offence.” As per Section 438(i)(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused when Court finds that there is no possibility of the applicant/accused to flee from justice. The accused who is not available in India and his arrival to India is not certain he does not fulfill the condition of Section 438(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. In the opinion of this Court, if accused is not holding passport of India and is not within the territory of India on the day of moving anticipatory bail application and his arrival to India is not certain then his application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. However, if citizen of India is an accused and is in foreign country on visa he has to come back on the expiry of period of visa, therefore, on showing that accused shall arrive to India on a particular date and shall join the investigation his application can be entertained by the Court. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge May 09, 2011 R.S.