CASE DETAILS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC & Ors.

State of M.P. [1977] 2 SCR 52: (1976) 4 SCC 572; Sushila Aggarwal vs. NCT of Delhi [2020] 2 SCR 1: (2020) 5 SCC 1; Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab [1980] 3 SCR 383: (1980) 2 SCC 565; Jamini Mullick vs. Emperor (1909) ILR 36 Cal 174, Hidayat Ullah Khan vs. The Crown, AIR 1949 Lah 77; Gurbaksh Singh Sibia vs. State of Punjab, 1977 SCC OnLine P&H 157; Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. State of Maharashtra Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1770 of 2014; Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., [1994] 3 SCR 661: (1994) 4 SCC 260; Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan [2016] 9 SCR 560: (2016) 8 SCC 509; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986] 2 SCR 278: (1986) 3 SCC 156; State of Bihar vs. Deokaran Nenshi [1973] 1 SCR 1004: (1972) 2 SCC 890; Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee [1997] 3 SCR 1127: (1997) 5 SCC 30; Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai [2004] 3 Suppl.

SCR 604: (2004) 8 SCC 100; Ramesh vs. State of T.N. [2005] 2 SCR 493: (2005) 3 SCC 507: ; Manish Ratan vs. State of M.P., [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 226: (2007) 1 SCC 262; Rupali Devi vs. State of U.P., [2019] 6 SCR 577: (2019) 5 SCC 384; Re: Benod Ranjan Sinha 1981 SCC Online Cal 102; L.R. Naidu (Dr.) vs. State of Karnataka, 1983 SCC OnLine Kar 206; N.K. Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 1887 – referred to. In re: Sturman, 1984.604 F. Supp. 278. (F. E. Devine (1990); Regina vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte LeecH, (1994) Q.B. 198; Coroline Kuthie Karanja vs. Director Public Prosecutions (2021) eKLR – referred to. Anticipatory Bail: An Indian Civil Liberties Innovation, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 14:1-2, 107-114; Maxwell, Treatise on Interpretation of Statutes (10 edn.), p 284; Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10 th Edition, Revised, Black’s Law Dictionary, 11 th Edition – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.3549-3552 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2022 of the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72) in CRLM Nos.3941, 3943, 3944 and 3945 of 2022. PRIYA INDORIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. 531 Appearances: Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Tathagat Sharma, Siddhartha Sinha, Nring Chamwidbo Zeliang, Shivam Singhania, Saransh Kumar, Prashant Rawat, Advs. for the Amicus Curiae. Kaustav Paul, Sr. Adv., Rishi Matoliya, H. D. Thanvi, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Achal Singh Bule, Kshitij Bikaramia, Mahendra Singh Inda, Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., V. N. Raghupathy, M Bangaraswamy, S Shashank Reddy, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Apurv S., Sourav Roy, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Vasudev Singh, Kaushal Sharma, Attarva Kotwal, Ms. Anjana Sharma, Sukumar, Deepak Goel, Kumar Kartikay, Advs. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J. Leave granted. Bird’s Eye View of the Controversy:

We begin this Judgment by an illustration: A person allegedly under intoxication beats another person with an iron rod in the State of Goa. The victim of the attack is injured. The alleged assailant travels to Rourkela, Odisha, where he is working in a factory. Meanwhile, the family of the injured registered a First Information Report (FIR) for the off ence of causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Bicholim Police Station, Goa. On coming to know about the same and apprehending his arrest, the alleged assailant fi les an application for anticipatory bail before the District and Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, Odisha, having jurisdiction over Rourkela. Whether the alleged assailant’s application is maintainable or not? Such a question has come for consideration before this Court in the present appeal. 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. Facts of the case:

2.1. The present appeals have been fi led by the complainant-wife, against the orders dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru City in Criminal Misc. No. 3941/2022, 3943/2022, 3944/2022 and 3945/2022. By the said orders, the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru City has granted anticipatory bail to the accused-husband and his family namely, accused Nos. 2,3 & 4 in FIR No. 43/2022 which alleged commission of off ences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short), registered by the complainant-wife at Chirawa Police Station, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

2.2. In view of the above, we take note of the social reality of criminal complaints relating to dowry harassment, cruelty and domestic violence arising out of unsuccessful matrimonial relationships. With the increasing migration of young people for marital and career prospects, supplemented by the forces of economic liberalization, a signifi cant number of couples hail from two diff erent States, with the corollary being that the matrimonial home of a complainant-wife is located in a diff erent State from where her parental home is located.

According to the complainant-wife (appellant herein), the facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell as gathered from the material on record are:

3.1. The complainant-wife got married to the accused-husband on

11.12.2020 and started living in Bengaluru.

3.2. On 09.11.2021, the accused-husband fi led a divorce petition M.C. No. 5786/2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Notice was issued in the divorce petition on 15.11.2021.

3.3. On 07.03.2022, the complainant-wife fi led Transfer Petition No.590/22 before this Court to transfer the case from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to Court of Additional District Judge, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. PRIYA INDORIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.] 533

3.

The complainant-wife registered a First Information Report (‘FIR’, for short) being FIR No. 43/2022 for off ences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the IPC, at Chirawa Police Station, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, on 25.01.2022 at 06.07 pm.

3.

At the time of marriage, two younger siblings of the complainant- wife were still unmarried. The father of the complainant-wife, despite being a heart patient who had undergone Angioplasty, spent about Rs. 46,00,000/- on the wedding and had met the dowry demands made by the accused-husband and his family members being his father, mother and younger brother, i.e., accused Nos.2, 3 & 4.

3.

That the complainant-wife was a victim of harassment, torture and assault for the demand of dowry. The accused-husband and his family claimed that they had been cheated because the complainant-wife’s father had promised to spend one crore rupees for the marriage. The harassment and torture continued from 11.12.2020 until 06.07.2021. For less than a year of marriage that the couple spent together, the accused-husband perpetrated cruelty upon her by frequently threatening to divorce her and get married for the second time.

3.

The accused-husband started threatening and abusing the complainant-wife and stated that the complainant-wife was mentally and physically incapable of intimate relationships. Additionally, he slapped the complainant-wife about a month after the marriage and said that he was not inclined for marriage and preferred to live a free life. He threatened the complainant-wife that if she wanted to stay together, she would have to fulfi l the dowry demand.

3.

The complainant-wife informed her in-laws, being accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, about the refusal of the accused-husband to consummate the marriage and the physical assault committed on her. Allegedly, her in-laws dismissed her by saying that it was not necessary to have a relationship with the husband and as such, being a husband, he had the right to beat her.

3.

Deeply agonized by this experience, a demand regarding purchase of a scooter for the accused-husband was met. Rs.1,01,326/- was to be paid online from complainant-wife’s mother’s bank account on 12.02.2021. 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

3.

Thereafter, the accused-husband started demanding a car, but the demand could not be fulfi lled. The complainant-wife was harassed even when she was COVID-19 positive, and eventually, she was driven out of the matrimonial house on 02.06.2021. The complainant-wife’s father begged the accused-husband to take back his daughter, but the accused- husband refused.

3.

Thereafter, on 11.06.2021, the complainant-wife’s father was forced to bring the complainant-wife back to Chirawa.

3.

It was averred that goods and valuables worth Rs. 30,00,000/- were still in possession of the accused-husband and his family. The complainant-wife was continuously threatened with death by the accused- husband and his family even when she was in her paternal home in Chirawa. When the complainant-wife came to Chirawa, the accused-husband through internet call and video, threatened to kill her if she came to Bengaluru and kept saying all the time that if she came to Bengaluru, he would get her killed by goons and her dead body would also not be known.

3.

The complainant-wife refused to undergo a medical test and noted that at the time she was thrown out of the accused-husband’s house, she had shown light blue marks near the neck and shoulder to her parents but being hopeful of a change in the attitude of the husband, and aff ected by social stigma, she did not fi le any report.

3.

The Sub-Inspector, Chirawa Police Station, Rajasthan made a note that from the victim’s report, the off ences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the IPC were made out and the investigation was initiated. We reiterate that the aforesaid details are as narrated by the complainant and are not our inferences of facts of the case. Impugned Orders: The accused-husband and his family members, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, sought the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short) by fi ling CRL. MISC. No. 3941/2022, CRL.MISC. No. 3943/2022, CRL. MISC. No. 3944/2022 and CRL. MISC. No. 3945/2022 before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. PRIYA INDORIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.] 535

4. The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, on 07.07.2022, allowed the applications of anticipatory bail made by the accused-husband and his family members, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

4.1. It is clear from a reading of the impugned orders that both Bagalkunte Police Station, Bengaluru and Chirawa Police Station, Rajasthan, were Respondents in the Bail Application. Both police stations were represented by the same Public Prosecutor before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

4.2. The learned Judge noted that the Investigating Officer had commenced the investigation, conducted mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses and completed a major part of the investigation. It was reasoned that the involvement of the accused-husband and his family members, being accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, was yet to be proved. The learned Judge further reasoned that since the alleged off ences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are to be tried before the Magistrate, there was absolutely no reason to deny the benefi t of anticipatory bail.

4.3. When the police of Chirawa called upon the accused-husband and his family members, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4, it was realised that the learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, had granted them anticipatory bail. This was confi rmed by the complainant-wife when she checked the Court’s website.

4.4. On 09.12.2022, this Court allowed complainant-wife’s Transfer Petition No.590/22 and transferred the M.C. No. 5786/2021 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, to the Court of Additional District Judge, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

5. Being aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused- husband and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the complainant-wife fi led W.P. No.48/2023 before this Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 17.02.2023 with liberty to pursue her legal remedies.

6. Thereafter, the present Special Leave to Appeal came to be fi led and notice was issued by this Court on 17.03.2023. On 07.07.2023, this Court requested learned Additional Solicitor General Sri Vikramjit Banerjee to assist the Court as an amicus curiae, having regard to the ramifi cations that would arise in the context of Section 438 of CrPC and the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court or High Court to grant pre-arrest bail, when 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. the FIR is not registered within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular district or State but in a diff erent State. Submissions:

7. We have heard Sri Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General and learned amicus, Sri Kaustav Paul, learned senior counsel for the complainant-wife, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan, Sri V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka and Smt. Anjana Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-husband. We have also perused the material on record.

7.1. Learned senior counsel Sri Banerjee, while assisting this Court as an amicus, submitted as under: i. Section 438 of CrPC has only used the term ‘High Court or the Court of Session’, as the case may be’ but has not specifi ed whether such a ‘High Court or the Court of Session’ has to be the same Court which can take cognizance of the matter or can be any ‘High Court or Court of Session’ across the country. Therefore, there exists limited legislative guidance about the power of a Court to grant anticipatory bail for an off ence that is registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, in other words, whether ‘extra-territorial anticipatory bail’ can be granted by a High Court or Court of Session to a person apprehending arrest. ii. Elaborating on the divergent approaches of various High Courts in the country regarding the grant of ‘extra-territorial anticipatory bail’, learned amicus submitted that the Courts have evolved the ‘transit anticipatory bail’ approach to provide an equitable and interim relief enabling an accused travelling a residing in a diff erent State to seek anticipatory bail. Learned amicus clarifi ed that anticipatory bail and ‘transit anticipatory bail’ are diff erent, as the former may or may not be restricted to a time period, whereas the latter is always granted for a specifi c time period, until an applicant can make an application for anticipatory bail before a Court that can take ‘cognizance’ of the off ence. It was further submitted that this Court had adopted the ‘transit anticipatory bail’ approach in State of Assam vs. Brojen Gogol PRIYA INDORIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.] 537