Supreme Court: Whether accused involved in matrimonial offence can be permitted to accept Job Abroad?

 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the permission sought by the appellant to travel abroad to join as Cyber Security Architect with a company in Belgium should not be denied, merely on account of pendency of the aforesaid case against him. It is not in dispute that the appellant is in India for the last more than one year, still the investigation has not been completed. In case the appellant is not allowed to go abroad to join the service, as has been offered to him, his career prospects may be affected. However, we grant permission to the appellant subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant will deposit a sum of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with the Trial Court within two weeks which shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and shall be renewed automatically thereafter, till either the appellant comes back or the trial is over. Specific order of the Trial Court shall be required to release that FDR;

(ii) The appellant shall furnish an undertaking before the Trial Court within two weeks that he will attend each and every hearing of the case, as and when chargesheet, if any, is filed and also attend the hearing personally in case the Court so requires; and

(iii) In case of his failure to comply with the undertaking given by him, the amount of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) shall stand forfeited to the State, on passing of order by the Trial Court. {Para 5}

6. The order dated 24th September, 2024 passed by the High Court stands modified to the extent mentioned above.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2025

Date of Order: 09.12.2025

A.Mohammed Zaheer Vs. The State Rep . By The Inspector Of Police and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/94504/2025

Print Page

Kerala HC: What conditions the court should impose while granting anticipatory bail to accused residing abroad?

 Suffice to say, the courts may have to cautiously and prudently assess the scenario and in such cases, it may be only in the fitness of things and to avoid giving leverage to the accused to abuse or misuse the grant of the bail order to stipulate a condition as per Sec.438(2) to regulate the bail order granted as per Sec.438(1) that the accused should come back to the country and co-operate with the Police investigati0n within a reasonable time limit. So also, the courts could impose conditions in the nature of Clause (iii) of Sec.438(2) that, in such a scenario the accused shall not leave India without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned. In cases of this nature, conditions as per clauses (i) & (iii) of Sec.438(2), would be necessary to effectuate the very purpose of grant of bail, which is to ensure that the accused co-operates with both the investigati0n and the trial. {Para 98}

100. Further, since the conditions, as envisaged in clauses (i) & (iii) of Sec.438(2), form the very bedrock of the purposes and objectives of grant of bail so as to ensure that the accused co-operates with the investigation and trial, etc., the anticipatory bail court will also have jurisdiction to order that if such conditions imposed by the said court that the accused, who is abroad, should come back to India and co-operate with the police investigati0n within a stipulated time limit, etc., is not complied with by the accused, then, the order granting anticipatory bail, under Sec.438(1) could be ordered to be vacated, etc.

101. If the Court is satisfied about the parameters and criteria for grant of bail in a given case, where the accused is abroad, then the court, in its discretion, could consider the grant of interim bail order subject to satisfying the strict requirements of Sec.438. Once the Court grants such bail order, then it shall be the duty of the Police authorities and law enforcement agencies to honour such bail order granted to an accused, who is abroad, so that he can come to the country and execute the bail bonds, etc. Therein, the court can also stipulate that one of the conditions to regulate the grant of interim bail, which is an ancillary power under Sec.438(1), by imposing condition as in clause (i) of Sec.438(2) that, the applicant/accused should come back to India and co-operate with the interrogation process within a specified, reasonable time limit, etc. As and when the court thereafter considers the disposal of the main application, it is found that the accused has not complied with the condition to come to India and to co-operate with the Police investigati0n, etc., within the stipulated time limit, and the court is convinced about the lack of bona fides, etc., then the court will also have the discretion to dismiss the main application and to consequently order that the order granting interim bail will stand vacated and the main application itself could be dismissed. Such approach in appropriate cases would also be conducive of the legislative intention conceived in the engraftment of the discretion granted to the bail court to impose conditions as in Clauses (i) & (iii) of Sec.438(2) to regulate the grant of bail that the accused shall co-operate with the police investigation and shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court concerned. In other words, this option can be a basis for the court to be assured that the bail granted on interim basis is not abused or misused by the accused and to ensure the effectuation of the condition that the accused should be in India, as envisaged in Clause (iii) of Sec.438(2).

102. The learned Amici Curiae have submitted that in appropriate cases, if the Court finds that the case is free of complications and the case of the accused, who is abroad, fulfils the parameters and factors for grant of bail under Sec.438(1), then the Court will also have the discretion to dispose the main application granting bail, subject to strict condition, including the condition that the accused should come over to the country within a specified reasonable time limit to co-operate with the police investigation and shall not thereafter leave India, without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court, etc. That in such cases, the Court will also have the power to lay down a further condition that if the accused does not come to India, within the above specified time limit, then the bail so granted would stand vacated on expiry of the said time limit. That such a power is ancillary and incidental to the primary objectives of grant of bail which are to ensure the co-operation of the accused with the investigation and trial, etc.

103. It is also pointed out that if the Court can pass interim bail order to an accused who is abroad and can later vacate the interim bail order and dismiss the main bail application, if he does not comply with the condition to come to India within a specified time limit to co-operate with the police investigation, then the aforesaid option of passing a final order granting bail, with the afore conditions is also a lawful option in the exercise of discretion. In this regard, it is to be noted that such an option will also be open to the Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and if the Court is convinced that such discretion in that regard could be prudently exercised, so as to avoid misuse of the bail orders secured by accused, who is abroad.

104. In this regard, it may be pertinent to note the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in para 92.3 of Sushila Aggarwal's case supra [MANU/SC/1538/2019 : (2020) 5 SCC 1, p. 110] that, wherein it has been inter alia held that, while considering an anticipatory bail application, the court has to consider various parameters like, the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc., and the courts would be justified and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Sec.437(3) CrPC [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis and depending upon the materials produced by the State or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed, etc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl. Nos. 4421 and 4983 of 2022

Decided On: 11.04.2023

Anu Mathew Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Alexander Thomas and C.S. Sudha, JJ.

Author: Alexander Thomas, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/0926/2023.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Set-Off Under Section 428 CrPC Can't Be Claimed For Detention Undergone For Offence In Foreign Country

Suffice for us to say that the judgment on this issue in Atul Manubhai Parek1 case discusses the earlier two opinions in Raghbir Singh1 case and Najakat Ali Mubarak Ali1 case to opine that the Accused cannot claim a double benefit Under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As already stated, the law would have application within the country and does not have anything to do with extra-territorial application where the trial and conviction has taken place for a local offence, i.e. Portugal in this case.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 679 of 2015 and 180/2018

Decided On: 11.07.2022

Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0870/2022

Print Page

Whether a person who is not present in India can file an application for anticipatory bail?

A fundamental question arises for consideration in this context. Can a person who is not available in India file an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

The decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 : (1980) S.C.C. 565 was followed in Sidharam Satlingappa Mehetre v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1021/2010 : (2011) 1 S.C.C. 694.

16. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 : (1980) S.C.C. 565, the Supreme Court considered the conditions to be satisfied before the grant of anticipatory bail. It was held:

35. Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has 'reason to believe' that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression 'reason to believe' shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief, for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. S. 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely.

17. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under the section and the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. Subsection (2) of Section 438 provides that when the court makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including those mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) in sub-section (2). Clause (iii) thereof is "a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court" The aforesaid provisions would indicate that the court must be satisfied that the person concerned is either present in India or he must be able to be present in India immediately before the final hearing. If the person concerned is not present in India, the court would not be able to stipulate a condition that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court, as contemplated in clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 438. A person absent from India cannot leave India. The only irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is that a person who is not in India or who does not intend to visit India soon, cannot conveniently remain abroad and move an application for anticipatory bail before a court in India. A blanket order cannot be passed to enable a person to wield that order whenever he finds pleasure to visit India and thereafter leave the country at his pleasure and flee from justice. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not intended for such a purpose at all.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

B.A. Nos. 5358 and 5620 of 2011

Decided On: 17.08.2011

Souda Beevi  Vs.  S. I. of Police, Pallickal Police Station and another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mr. Justice K.T. Sankaran

Print Page

When blood sample of person accused of committing crime in foreign country should not be taken forcibly?

Equivalent Citation: AIR2004SC1686, 2004CriLJ1446,  (2004)11SCC180

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1907 of 2003)

Decided On: 10.02.2004

Appellants: Narinder Singh Bogarh
Vs.
Respondent: State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Sections 166B and 482 - Appellant a suspect in murder of one ‘S’ in Canada - Application filed by Superintendent of Police, CBI Chandigarh under Section 166B, seeking directions to appellant to make a statement and give blood samples for sending same to Canadian Authorities as desired by them in their letter of request - Allowed by Trial Court - Revision Petition and Misc petition U/S 482 dismissed by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - Appellant neither willing to give a voluntary statement nor willing to give voluntarily, sample of his blood as desired by Canadian authorities - Since request of Canadian authorities made specific that statement as well as blood samples to be collected voluntarily, if appellant was not willing to make any statement or give his blood samples, CBI could not take recourse to Section 166B - Allowing appeal, held that respondent exceeded his brief by invoking provisions under Section 166B - As courts below applied provisions of Section 166B erroneously, impugned judgments held unsustainable.

Print Page

When mother can be granted permission to take children to Foreign country?

I am of the view that the apprehensions of the learned Guardian Judge are unfounded.

The children are US Citizens by 2015.12.03 16:12  birth. Therefore, for their mental and emotional developments, it is required that they should visit their motherland and be acquainted with its environment and also meet their mother. So far as apprehension of the learned Guardian Judge is concerned that the Court will not be able to enforce the return of the children as there is no bilateral agreement between United States and India and that India is not party to the Hague Convention, I am of the considered view that law enforcement is much effective in USA and the rights of the children are duly protected. Moreover, the decree incorporating the settled conditions was passed by the US Court and in case of violation, the same can always be enforced by US Court or the Police Department of USA. In order to allay the fear of the respondent, certain conditions can be laid down to ensure the safety of the children and their safe return, as per order of this Court. The mother petitioner has agreed to bear the traveling expenses of the children and also their boarding and lodging expenses and ensure their safe return on the date ordered by this Court.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maninderjit Kaur Atwal vs Barinder Singh Pannu on 1 December, 2015

          Civil Revision No.5533 of 2015                                 
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

                       AT CHANDIGARH

   Coram;Kuldip Singh, J. 

Citation;AIR 2016 P&H 18

Print Page

Whether power of attorney executed before notary foreign country is presumed to be authentic?

 The authentication bears not only the seal but also signatures of the Notary Public. S. 85 of the Evidence Act provides as under :

"85.The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice Consul, or representative of the (Central Government). was so executed and authenticated."

(10) The document in the present case is a power of attorney and again on the face of it shows to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public. In view of Section 85 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to presume that it was so executed and authenticated. Once the original document is produced purporting to be a power of attornney so executed and attested, as stated in S. 85 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to presume that it was so executed and authenticated. The provision is mandatory, and it is open to the Court to presume that all the necessary requirements for the proper execution of the power of attorney have been duly fulfillled. There is no dobt that the section is not exhaustive and there are different legal modes of executing a power of attorney, but, once the power of attorney on its face shows to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public, the Court has to so presume that it was so executed and authenticated. The authentication by a Notary Public of a document, purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before him is to be treated as the equivalent of an affidavit of identity. The object of the section is to avoid the necessity of such affidavit of identity. Under Section 57 sub-section (6) of the Evidence Act, the Courts have to taken judicial notice of the seals of Notaries Public and when the seal is there, of which judicial notice is taken, there is no reason why judicial notice should not be taken of the signatures as well". What is argued by Shri Rameshwar Dial, learned counsel for defendants I to 3, is that the Notary Public in Section 85 or Section 57 of the Evidence Act merely means notaries appointed under the Notaries Act 1952. The argument is that where a document purports to be a power of attorney, before the Court can presume it to be so executed and authenticated as is contemplated by S. 85, it should have been authenticated by Indian Consul or Vice-Consul or the representative of the Central Government and not by a notary public of a foreign country. For one thing Notaries Act 1952 was not there when Evidence Act which was the first Act of 1872 was enacted. Secondly, the purpose of Sections 57 and 85 is to cut down recording of evidence. For such matters, like the due execution of a power of attorney in the present day of international commerce, there is no reason to limit the word "Notary Public" in S. 85 or Section 57 to Notaries appointed in India. The fact that notaries public of foreign countries have been recognised as proper authorities for due execution and authentication for purpose of section 85 of the Evidence Act is illustrated by the Supreme Court in case Jugraj Singh and anr. v. Jaswant Singh and or s. . In this case the Supreme Court held that a power of attorney executed and authenticated before a notary public of California satisfied the test of S. 85 of the Evidence Act and S. 33 of the Indian Registration Act. If the interpretation of notary public is limited to notaries public appointed in this country only, it will become impossible to carry on commerce with foreign countries. Surely, S. 57 of the Indian Evidence Act which enjoins upon the Courts to take judicial notice of seals of Notary Public, such judicial notice cannot be limited to Notaries appointed in India only It seems clear if the entire sub-section is read. Once, this conclusion is reached, there is no reason to limit the meaning of the expression "Notaries Public" in S. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act to Notaries appointed in India only.

Delhi High Court

National And Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs World Science News And Ors. on 27 January, 1976

Equivalent citations: AIR 1976 Delhi 263, 12 (1976) DLT 69, ILR 1976 Delhi 559

Print Page