Skip to content


Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 523 of 1980
Judge
Reported in19(1981)DLT300
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438
AppellantPritam Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Advocates: D.C. Mathur and; T.S. Sodhi, Advs
Excerpt:
in the instant case, the accused resided within the territorial jurisdiction of the delhi high court - however, the case was registered in punjab - it was observed that the jurisdiction relating to the cognizance of offence was different from the jurisdiction to grant bail - it was held that the court at delhi had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for unsatisfied period under section 438 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 - - 5000.00 and surety in the like amount......at delhi, and if the delhi courts have the jurisdiction to try, they will also have the right to grant bail. that apart, it seems to me that there is nothing in s. 438 cr. p.c. which restricts the jurisdiction of the high court or the court of session. one need not mix up the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence with that of granting of bails. bails are against arrest and detention. thereforee, an appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. if the court of session or the high court has the jurisdiction to grant interim bail, then the power to grant full anticipatory bail will emanate from the same jurisdiction. concurrent jurisdiction in courts.....
Judgment:

M.L. Jain, J.

(1) This judgment shall dispose of two petitions, namely, Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980.

(2) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980, i.e. Pritam Singh, is the proprietor of M/s Navyug Press, Pleasure Garden Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980, i.e. Amar Bharati, is a practitioner in Homoeupathic medicines and also writes books in Punjabi, besides doing translation of books from other languages to Punjabi on behalf of the National Book Trust and Sahitya Academy. One Sardar Kapur Singh, an ex-ICS officer approached the petitioner Pritam Singh for the printing of second enlarged edition of his book titled 'Sachi Saki' in Gurumukhi script. It is alleged that in this connection he gave some photographs to be published in the said edition. The petitioner published another book 'Sat Guru Tis Ka Naue' in which its author Amar Bharti quoted a Passage from an article appearing in Nawan Hindustan of September 6, 1965, containing the views of the complainant Sardar Kapur Singh in praise of Baba Ram Singh and with reference to that article, also published the photograph of Sardar Kapur Singh.

(3) Sardar Kapur Singh made a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to register a case against the said petitioner's Pritam Singh and Amar Bharti at Ludhiana under Ss. 406/500/501/504 I.P.G. and S. 63 of the Copyrights Act upon the allegation that the book 'Sat Gur Tis Ka Naue' was exposed for sale in Ludhiana in which the photographs supplied as afore- said by the complainant were misused. The Petitioners who are residents of Delhi, have moved these two applications (Crl. Misc. (Main) Nos. 523 and 527 of 1980) for anticipatory bail. These applications are not opposed on merits by the State of Punjab but they contend that this court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in cases arising outside its jurisdiction. The case was registered in Punjab and no bail could be granted by the Delhi High Court. Reliance is placed upon an order of A.B. Rohatgi, J. made ill Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 316 of 1980, on August 11, 1980, in which Shi-i Balraj Trikha had applied for anticipatory bail for an offence alleged to have been committed in Manipur. The learned Judge observed that upon the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, it appears that courts in Manipur are the courts of competent jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Sections 6, 7, 177 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amply show this. He, thereforee, considered that the petitioner should apply to an appropriate court for such relief as he thinks proper. Meanwhile, he granted him interim bail for 30 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand refer to other three cases arising outside Delhi in which anticipatory bail was granted by this Court, in one case by J.D. Jain, J., and in one case by Talwar, J., and in yet another case by me. Since then, I have come across orders of the Calcutta and Madras High Courts granting interim anticipatory bail in similar situations so that the petitioner could get breathing time to apply to the court concerned.

(4) I have heard the learned counsel at length. The offence of S. 406 I.P.C. which is the only non-bailable offence in these cases can be tried both in the courts in Punjab and in the courts at Delhi, and if the Delhi courts have the jurisdiction to try, they will also have the right to grant bail. That apart, it seems to me that there is nothing in S. 438 Cr. P.C. which restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court or the court of session. One need not mix up the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence with that of granting of bails. Bails are against arrest and detention. thereforee, an appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. If the court of session or the High Court has the jurisdiction to grant interim bail, then the power to grant full anticipatory bail will emanate from the same jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction in courts situated in different States is not outside the scope of the Cr. P.C. It is not possible to divide the jurisdiction under S. 438 Cr. P. C. into an ad interim and complete, but it is permissible if it is so expedient or desirable, for any of the courts competent to take cognizance of and to try an offence and the courts competent to grant bails to grant anticipatory bail for a specified period only. I, thereforee) reject the contention of the State of Punjab with regard to the jurisdiction of this court. I also do not see any reason or circumstances why this court should only grant interim bail in these case and direct the petitioners to approach the courts in Punjab.

(5) Consequently, I accept these petitions (Crl. Misc. (Main) Nos. 523 and 527 of 1980), and direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released provided each one of them furnishes personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5000.00 and surety in the like amount. The condition of the direction shall be that they shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police of Punjab in accordance with law and shall not in any manner tamper with the witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //