Delhi High Court - Orders
Sana vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 December, 2024
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4833/2024
SANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kashif Athar and Mr. Irfan
Firdous, Advocates
versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the Govt. of
NCT of Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 24.12.2024
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail for a period of 60 days in connection with FIR No.0548/2024 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/123/69/108/89/61(2) and 115(2) BNS; 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 3 and 5(1) Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 registered at P.S. Ghaziabad Kotwali.
2. As evident, the offence was committed in District Ghaziabad and the FIR has also been registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ghaziabad (UP).
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2024, the petitioner's brother got engaged to the complainant's daughter at Radisson Blu Hotel, Noida in the presence of family members of both sides. However, on This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 22:44:41 11.12.2024, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the daughter of the complainant committed suicide which led to the registration of the FIR against the brother of the present petitioner namely, Faraz Attar and his family members including the petitioner, her mother and another brother (Kashif Athar).
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is sister of the main accused Faraz Attar, who is in judicial custody. He submits that it is the brother of the petitioner namely, Faraz Attar, who got engaged with the complainant's daughter and the suicide was also committed by the complainant's daughter at her own residence.
5. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner as well as her mother were facilitating the tuitions to the daughter of the complainant to convert her into Islam against her will. He submits that there is no allegation against the present petitioner to the effect that she, in any manner, has instigated the daughter of the complainant to commit suicide.
6. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondent/State of Uttar Pradesh. The notice be served upon the respondent through the Resident Commissioner of the State of U.P. in New Delhi as well as through its Standing Counsel in Delhi.
7. Learned APP for the State of NCT of Delhi is present in Court and he submits that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2024) 4 SCC 749, the petitioner is entitled to transit bail only for a limited period.
8. At this stage, reference to the paragraphs 96, 97 and 98 of Priya Indoria (supra) is apposite which read as under:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 22:44:41 "96. We shall now revert to our illustration given at the beginning of this judgment. In the illustration, we have stated that if a person commits an offence in one State and the FIR is lodged within the jurisdiction where the offence was committed but the accused resides in another State he can approach the court in the other State and seek transit anticipatory bail of limited duration. We have held that the accused could approach the competent court in the State where he is residing or is visiting for a legitimate purpose and seek the relief of limited transit anticipatory bail although the FIR is not filed in the territorial jurisdiction of the district or State in which the accused resides, or is present depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Conversely, the offence may be committed in one State, the FIR may be lodged in another State and the accused may reside in a third State. In which of the courts of the three States would the accused approach for grant of anticipatory bail? We feel that having regard to the salutary concept of access to justice, the accused can seek limited transit anticipatory bail or limited interim protection from the court in the State in which he resides but in such an event, a "regular" or full-fledged anticipatory bail could be sought from the competent court in the State in which the FIR is filed.
97. We are conscious that this may also lead the accused to choose the court of his choice for seeking anticipatory bail. Forum shopping may become the order of the day as the accused would choose the most convenient court for seeking anticipatory bail. This would also make the concept of territorial jurisdiction which is of importance under the CrPC pale into insignificance. Therefore, in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the court as well as the law by the accused, it is necessary for the court before which the plea for anticipatory bail is made, to ascertain the territorial connection or proximity between the accused and the territorial jurisdiction of the court which is approached for seeking such a relief. Such a link with the territorial jurisdiction of the court could be by way of place of residence or occupation/work/profession. By this, we imply that the accused cannot travel to any other State only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail. The reason as to why he is seeking such bail from a court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR has not been filed must be made clear and explicit to such a court. Also there must be a reason to believe or an imminent apprehension of arrest for a This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 22:44:41 non-bailable offence made out by the accused for approaching the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR is not lodged or the inability to approach the court where the FIR is lodged immediately.
98. Having regard to the vastness of our country and the length and breadth of it and bearing in mind the complex nature of life of the citizens, if an offence has been committed by a person in a particular State and if the FIR is filed in another State and the accused is a resident in a third State, bearing in mind access to justice, the accused who is residing in the third State or who is present there for a legitimate purpose should be enabled to seek the relief of limited anticipatory bail of transitory nature in the third State."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Considering the aforesaid position, as well as, regard being had to the fact that the petitioner resides in Delhi, the petitioner is granted transit anticipatory bail till the next date of hearing.
10. List after vacations on 09.01.2025.
11. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 24, 2024 'rs' This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 22:44:41