Allahabad High Court
Prem Sagar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 February, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:34414 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1590 of 2024 Applicant :- Prem Sagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Rai,Rajkumar Mishra,Ram Pyare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Prem Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.1489 of 2023, registered under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and 66, 43, 66(C), 66(D) Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station- Southeast CEN Crime PS, District- Bengaluru City, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the instant FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and 66, 43, 66(C), 66(D) Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station- Southeast CEN Crime PS, District- Bengaluru City. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. The applicant is a resident of District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.
4. It is further submitted that since the FIR has been lodged at Bengaluru City, and the investigation is going on, the applicant is ready to participate in the investigation at Bengaluru City and is willing to appear before the court concerned at Bengaluru (Karnataka) for the purpose of getting anticipatory bail/regular bail but apprehending his arrest hence, he is seeking transit anticipatory bail by means of the present application for short time so that he may appear before the competent court at Bengaluru City under limited protection granted by this Court by way of time bound transit anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any protection to the applicant. The offence has taken place outside the state of U.P. and thus the applicant may appear before the court concerned and apply for bail/anticipatory bail and the present application is not maintainable before this Court.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1484, has observed as follows:-
"101. Further, on a reading of Section 438 of CrPC, we do not find that the expression "the High Court" or "the Court of Session" is restricted vis--vis the local limits or any particular territorial jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that if an FIR is lodged in one State then the accused can approach the Court in another State for seeking anticipatory bail. He can do so, if at the time of lodging of the FIR in any State, he is residing or is present there for a legitimate purpose in any other State. In fact, on a reading of Section 438 of CrPC, it does not emerge that the expression "the High Court" or "the Court of Session" must have reference only to the place or territorial jurisdiction within which the FIR is lodged. If that was the implication, the same would have been expressly evident in the Section itself or by a necessary implication. Further use of the word "the" before the words "High Court" and "Court of Session" also does not mean that only the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, within whose jurisdiction the FIR is filed, is competent to exercise jurisdiction for the grant of transit anticipatory bail.
102. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that the accused cannot seek full-fledged anticipatory bail in a State where he is a resident when the FIR has been registered in a different State. However, in view of what we have discussed above, he would be entitled to seek a transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in the State where he is a resident which necessarily has to be of a limited duration so as to seek regular anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. The need for such a provision is to secure the liberty of the individual concerned. Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and since we have extended the concept of access to justice to such a situation and bearing in mind Article 14 thereof it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail. Otherwise, in a deserving case, there is likelihood of denial of personal liberty as well as access to justice for, by the time the person concerned approaches the Court of competent jurisdiction to seek anticipatory bail, it may well be too late as he may be arrested. Needless to say, the Court granting transit anticipatory bail would obviously examine the degree and seriousness of the apprehension expressed by the person who seeks transit anticipatory bail; while the object underlying exercise of such jurisdiction is to thwart arbitrary police action and to protect personal liberty besides providing immediate access to justice though within a limited conspectus.
103. If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is made solely with reference to the concept of territorial jurisdiction it would be adding a restriction to the exercise of powers under Section 438. This, in our view, would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice. We say so for the reason that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail."
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Priya Indoria (supra), but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on transit anticipatory bail for a fixed period.
8. In view of the above, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the applicant- Prem Sagar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on transit anticipatory bail on executing personal bond to the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer concerned.
9. This protection of transit anticipatory bail is granted for a period of four weeks only from today to enable the applicant to approach the competent court for seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.
10. In case, applicant fails to appear within the time stipulated, no further time would be extended and the interim protection shall stand automatically vacated.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)