📖 Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 749

Facts: A person against whom an FIR had been registered in one State applied to the Court of Session in another State, where he resided, for anticipatory bail or for limited protection. The question referred was whether a Court of Session or High Court can grant anticipatory bail, or an interim protection in the nature of transit anticipatory bail, in respect of an offence registered outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Held: The Supreme Court held that a Court of Session or a High Court may grant limited anticipatory bail in the nature of transit anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest in respect of an FIR registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, so as to enable him to approach the court having jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that access to justice is a facet of Article 21, and that a statutory remedy which can be reached only by a journey the applicant cannot safely make is, for him, no remedy at all. But it laid down conditions: the applicant must show a reasonable apprehension of a threat to his liberty and the impracticability of approaching the court of competent jurisdiction; notice must be issued to the Public Prosecutor and the investigating officer of the place where the FIR is registered, and they must be heard; the protection must be for a limited duration and for the purpose of enabling the applicant to approach the competent court; and the applicant must have a genuine connection with the place where he applies, the relief not being available to one who has gone there merely to invoke it.

Ratio: A Court of Session or High Court may grant limited transit anticipatory bail in respect of an FIR registered outside its jurisdiction, to enable the applicant to approach the competent court — on notice to the prosecution of that State, for a limited period, and where he has a genuine connection with the place.

📖 Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640

Facts: A complaint was lodged in one State in respect of a transaction whose ingredients arose substantially in another, and the question arose as to the territorial reach of a High Court’s jurisdiction where only part of the cause of action arises within it.

Held: The Supreme Court held that a High Court has jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arises within its territories, notwithstanding that the authority against whom relief is sought is situate outside them. The Court emphasised that the expression cause of action means the bundle of facts which the applicant must prove to obtain relief, and that jurisdiction turns on whether a part of that bundle arose within the territory — not on where the respondent sits. It also deprecated the practice of instituting proceedings in a forum having no real connection with the matter, observing that a person should not be permitted to choose a distant forum in order to put his opponent to expense and difficulty, and that a court should examine whether the choice of forum is genuine or is made for a collateral purpose.

Ratio: Jurisdiction turns on whether part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action arose within the territory, not on where the respondent sits. But a forum having no real connection with the matter should not be chosen, and a court should examine whether the choice is genuine.

⚠ Four practical points

The two are not alternatives. Transit anticipatory bail is a bridge to the ordinary remedy. An applicant who obtains it and then fails to approach the competent court within the period has simply lost his protection.

Notice is mandatory, not discretionary. The prosecution of the State where the FIR is registered must be heard — otherwise the court granting the protection acts on one side’s account of a matter arising wholly outside its jurisdiction.

The connection must be genuine. Residence, employment or family. A person who travels to a distant State and applies there the next day is not seeking transit protection; he is choosing a forum, and the relief is not available to him.

And the merits are not decided. The court granting transit protection does not consider the four factors in section 482(1). Those are for the court having jurisdiction, and observations on them by the transit court bind nobody.

The position stated shortly

1. Section 482 does not say which High Court or Court of Session may grant anticipatory bail, and the problem arises where the FIR is in one State and the applicant in another.

2. A Court of Session or High Court where the applicant is may grant limited anticipatory bail in the nature of transit anticipatory bail: Priya Indoria.

3. The foundation is access to justice as a facet of Article 21: a remedy reachable only by a journey the applicant cannot safely make is, for him, no remedy at all.

4. He must show a reasonable apprehension of a threat to his liberty and the impracticability of approaching the competent court at once.

5. Notice is mandatory to the Public Prosecutor and the investigating officer of the State where the FIR is registered, and they must be heard.

6. The protection is for a short and specified period and for the single purpose of enabling the applicant to move the competent court.

7. The court granting it does not decide the merits, and does not consider the four factors in section 482(1).

8. The applicant must have a genuine connection with the place — residence, employment, family. The relief is not available to one who travelled there to invoke it.

9. Jurisdiction generally turns on whether part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action arose within the territory; but a forum with no real connection should not be chosen: Navinchandra Majithia.

10. It is a bridge, not a replacement. An applicant who fails to approach the competent court within the period loses the protection.