A single judge bench held that, it has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, since the FIR was registered outside the territory of the High Court.
From Para 2,
2. It is averred in the application that the petitioners happen to be the in-laws and husband of the complainant. It is stated that the marriage between petitioner No.l and the complainant has taken place in the year 2013 and out of this marriage, one son has been born. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR in Madhya Pradesh against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Cr. P. C. It is also contended that under Section 79 of the Cr. P. C, warrants have to be executed by a police station located outside the jurisdiction of a State through the local police station and, as such, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application.
Issue from Para 5,
5. In the instant case, the petitioners are seeking bail in an FIR which has been registered beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as the FIR has been registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The question that arises for consideration is whether this Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 438 of the Cr. P. C, is vested with jurisdiction to grant bail in a case that has been registered beyond its local limits of jurisdiction.
Decision from Paras 7-9,
Nisar Ahmad Wani and Ors Vs Police Station Neemuch and Ors on 03 Jun 2022
7. On the basis of the aforequoted reasoning, the Court came to the conclusion that the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to a person against whom a case has been registered with a police station which is situated outside the local limits of its jurisdiction under the Code.
8. From the aforequoted enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the bail application which relates to an FIR that has been registered beyond the local limits of this Court even though the accused/petitioner may be residing within the jurisdiction of this Court.
9. The petitioners in the instant case are not seeking transit bail but are seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest on a permanent basis, regarding which this Court lacks jurisdiction in view of the ratio laid down in the aforequoted judgment.