Transit Bail and Jurisdiction of High Courts: Gripping hearing in Teesta Setalvad matter in SC

The hearing in Supreme Court against an order of the Bombay High Court granting transit bail to Teesta Setalvad witnessed an interesting hearing today on jurisdiction of High Courts to deal with such matters..The matter was argued before a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Navin Sinha..Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for Teesta Setalvad while Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and ASG Tushar Mehta represented the State of Gujarat..Setalvad was granted transit bail operative till May 2 by Bombay High Court in relation to FIR registered in Gujarat..The single judge, which granted transit bail had, however, referred the matter to a larger Bench, since it differed from an earlier view that transit bail cannot be granted if the case was not in within its jurisdiction..However, it had also granted liberty to Setalvad to approach the Bombay High Court for extension of relief if the larger Bench was not set up by May 2..State of Gujarat had challenged the same contending that the appropriate forum for grant of bail would be Gujarat High Court and not Bombay and that transit bail is a temporary arrangement, which has to be limited in time..At the outset, Gujarat government told the Court today that it has no intention to arrest Setalvad as of now..However, it contended that the appropriate forum to pray for anticipatory bail would be Gujarat and not Bombay..“FIR is filed in Gujarat. You have to file anticipatory bail in Gujarat. There is provision for transit bail where there is threat of arrest outside jurisdiction in which FIR is lodged. However, transit bail is limited in time and cannot be forever”, submitted Mahesh Jethmalani..Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then explained the arrangement of transit bail..“If there is apprehension for arrest in Maharashtra for an FIR lodged in Gujarat, then one can approach Maharashtra for transit bail. Subsequently, the person has to approach Gujarat from anticipatory bail”..Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for Setalvad, however contended that the jurisdictional court in this case is Bombay High Court and not Gujarat High Court..It was his argument that the cause of action arose in Maharashtra and not Gujarat and so Bombay High Court was the jurisdictional court irrespective of where the FIR was lodged..“The complaint lodged in Gujarat is that Ministry in Delhi had sanctioned funds for Ford Education Project in Maharashtra and funds were misused in Maharashtra. No part of the cause of action arose in Gujarat. The jurisdictional court is where cause of action arose, not where FIR was lodged”, submitted Singh..Singh also cited Supreme Court judgment to buttress his case..“If an offence is committed in Bombay and FIR is lodged in a north-eastern State, the accused is not required to go to north-eastern State.”.The Bench had a lengthy discussion. It, then, ordered that the transit bail granted by Bombay High Court will stand extended till May 31. In the meantime, the respondent can approach appropriate forum in Gujarat for appropriate remedies.