State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Dr. Brojen Gogoi & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 1997
Petitioner: State of Assam & Anr.
Respondent: Dr. Brojen Gogoi & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 1997
Judges: M.K. MUKHERJEE & K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 24, 1997
Head Note:
Section 438 read with section 178 – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Jurisdiction of Court – Alleged offences committed within State as Assam – Anticipatory bail granted by Bombay High Court – Held that it is not necessary to decide on question of jurisdiction in these proceedings, but the question of grant of bail must be heard by Guwahati High Court (Para 10)
Section 438 – Anticipa-tory bail – Grant of – Admitted position that State of Assam and DG of police of Assam not heard though made parties – Held that the orders of Bombay High Court liable to be set – aside on this ground alone. Matter transferred and remitted to Guwahati High Court. Chief Justice of High Court to allot the cases to a Divi-sion Bench which will hear all matters concerning thereto and all other Courts except the Division Bench of Guwahati High Court re-strained from entertaining the applications for anticipatory bails qua offences committed in State of Assam. (Para 10,11)
JUDGEMENT:
THOMAS, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 1997
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is in challenge of the order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 1. When this petition was taken up for hearing, his learned counsel brought to our notice that in spite of the above order the Assam Police arrested Respondent 1 and took him into custody. Thereby, he submitted, the appellants have violated the direction of the Bombay High Court in the impugned order.
3. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while conceding that Respondent 1 was arrested, joined issue with him on the contention that appellant violated the direction of the Bombay High Court. He put forward the stand of the State of Assam for not releasing him on bail.
4. We do not think it necessary to deal with the said contro-versy in this appeal. If Respondent 1 wants to raise that ques-tion it is open to him to move the appropriate forum.
5. As Respondent 1 is now under arrest this appeal has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1004, 1005 and 1006 of 1997.
6. Leave granted.
7. State of Assam and its Director General of Police have filed these appeals challenging the orders of the Bombay High Court as per which some officers of M/s Tata Tea Ltd. (who are arrayed as respondents herein) were granted anticipatory bail facility. It appears that those respondents are suspected to have given aid to militant groups which have been banned under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Assam Police are wanting to interrogate all the suspected persons, including the respondents, in connection with investigation of the cases registered for the above crimes by the appellants. The respond-ents moved the Bombay High Court for anticipatory bail and a learned Single Judge, without even affording an opportunity to the appellants for a hearing directed the appellants to release the respondents, if arrested, on bail of Rs.10,000 each with one or two sureties of the like amount.
8. Various arguments have been raised by Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in challenge of the impugned orders. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while arguing in reply to the appellants’ contention did not dispute that Government of Assam or the Director General of Police of the State of Assam were not heard, in spite of they being made parties in each of the applications for anticipatory bail.
9. According to Shri Tulsi, only the Courts of Session in Assam and High Court of Guwahati have jurisdiction to entertain the applications for anticipatory bail in respect of the activities alleged against the respondents vis-a-vis the two banned organi-zations because all such crimes were committed within the terri-torial limits of the State of Assam.
10. We do not think it necessary to decide whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the respondents. All the same, the question of granting antic-ipatory bail to any person who is a allegedly connected with the offences in question must for all practical purposes be consid-ered by the High Court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities could have been perpetrated. In view of the conceded position that appellants were not heard by the High Court we set aside the impugned orders on that ground alone. The applications are to be disposed of after hearing the appell-ants also. For that purpose we order that the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the respondents would stand trans-ferred to the High Court of Guwahati where those applications would be heard by a Division Bench of that High Court and appro-priate orders be passed thereon. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Guwahati to allot these cases to a Division Bench to hear the applications, preferably on 4.11.1997.
11. In order to avoid conflicting decisions and opinions, we think it necessary that all future petitions for anticipatory bail made by any one in common or related matters referring to such activities committed within the territorial limits of the Guwahati High Court shall be heard only by the same Division Bench. We further direct that no such application for anticipa-tory bail shall be entertained by any court other than the Divi-sion Bench of the High Court of Guwahati indicated above.
12. Status quo as on today will be maintained by the appellants vis-a-vis the respondents herein till 7.11.1997 which is neces-sary to enable the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati to pass appropriate orders on the applications filed by the respondents.
13. We direct the Registry to take immediate steps to ensure that the applications filed by the respondents for anticipatory bail in Bombay High Court are despatched to the Guwahati High Court so as to reach there on or before 3.11.1997.
14. The appeals are thus disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 1997
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is in challenge of the order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 1. When this petition was taken up for hearing, his learned counsel brought to our notice that in spite of the above order the Assam Police arrested Respondent 1 and took him into custody. Thereby, he submitted, the appellants have violated the direction of the Bombay High Court in the impugned order.
3. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while conceding that Respondent 1 was arrested, joined issue with him on the contention that appellant violated the direction of the Bombay High Court. He put forward the stand of the State of Assam for not releasing him on bail.
4. We do not think it necessary to deal with the said contro-versy in this appeal. If Respondent 1 wants to raise that ques-tion it is open to him to move the appropriate forum.
5. As Respondent 1 is now under arrest this appeal has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1004, 1005 and 1006 of 1997.
6. Leave granted.
7. State of Assam and its Director General of Police have filed these appeals challenging the orders of the Bombay High Court as per which some officers of M/s Tata Tea Ltd. (who are arrayed as respondents herein) were granted anticipatory bail facility. It appears that those respondents are suspected to have given aid to militant groups which have been banned under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Assam Police are wanting to interrogate all the suspected persons, including the respondents, in connection with investigation of the cases registered for the above crimes by the appellants. The respond-ents moved the Bombay High Court for anticipatory bail and a learned Single Judge, without even affording an opportunity to the appellants for a hearing directed the appellants to release the respondents, if arrested, on bail of Rs.10,000 each with one or two sureties of the like amount.
8. Various arguments have been raised by Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in challenge of the impugned orders. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while arguing in reply to the appellants’ contention did not dispute that Government of Assam or the Director General of Police of the State of Assam were not heard, in spite of they being made parties in each of the applications for anticipatory bail.
9. According to Shri Tulsi, only the Courts of Session in Assam and High Court of Guwahati have jurisdiction to entertain the applications for anticipatory bail in respect of the activities alleged against the respondents vis-a-vis the two banned organi-zations because all such crimes were committed within the terri-torial limits of the State of Assam.
10. We do not think it necessary to decide whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the respondents. All the same, the question of granting antic-ipatory bail to any person who is a allegedly connected with the offences in question must for all practical purposes be consid-ered by the High Court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities could have been perpetrated. In view of the conceded position that appellants were not heard by the High Court we set aside the impugned orders on that ground alone. The applications are to be disposed of after hearing the appell-ants also. For that purpose we order that the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the respondents would stand trans-ferred to the High Court of Guwahati where those applications would be heard by a Division Bench of that High Court and appro-priate orders be passed thereon. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Guwahati to allot these cases to a Division Bench to hear the applications, preferably on 4.11.1997.
11. In order to avoid conflicting decisions and opinions, we think it necessary that all future petitions for anticipatory bail made by any one in common or related matters referring to such activities committed within the territorial limits of the Guwahati High Court shall be heard only by the same Division Bench. We further direct that no such application for anticipa-tory bail shall be entertained by any court other than the Divi-sion Bench of the High Court of Guwahati indicated above.
12. Status quo as on today will be maintained by the appellants vis-a-vis the respondents herein till 7.11.1997 which is neces-sary to enable the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati to pass appropriate orders on the applications filed by the respondents.
13. We direct the Registry to take immediate steps to ensure that the applications filed by the respondents for anticipatory bail in Bombay High Court are despatched to the Guwahati High Court so as to reach there on or before 3.11.1997.
14. The appeals are thus disposed of.
