• Chambers of Daksha Kumar

The person outside India can file an anticipatory bail application,

The person outside India can file an anticipatory bail application, but before the final hearing accused must be in India: Kerala high court.



Under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., anyone who resides outside of India may submit an application for anticipatory bail. The Indian Law does not stipulate that a person cannot request anticipatory bail if they are outside the Indian Territory.


Before applying for anticipatory bail from outside India, the sole requirement anyone should remember is that they must appear in court prior to the petition's final hearing.


In the rape case involving an actor, the Kerala High Court was of the observation that a person may fear being arrested even outside of India for the offence, according to the ruling of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas' single bench.


The development of communication makes it possible for another investigating agency to send a team overseas to apprehend a suspect for a crime they committed in the country.


This circumstance may cause someone to fear being arrested even in another nation, thus it is their right to seek protection from that bail.


Furthermore, U/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. has no prohibition against someone residing outside the nation from submitting an application for anticipatory bail.


However, the prosecution questioned this release and claimed that the actor was ineligible for pre-bail because he was outside the country when the application for bail was made.


The bench did not consider this point, which declared that pre-bail requests are not restricted.

The only factor that needs to be taken into account is the person's requirement to be present in court during the last hearing in order for the condition of the final judgment to be effectively imposed.


The judge also cites the Supreme Court's rulings in the cases of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. the State of Punjab (1980) and Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, where it was stated that the court could not impose any restrictions under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. that the legislature did not deem appropriate.

13 views0 comments