# Amita Garg & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 455
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-06
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5286 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amita-garg-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-48798
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A.

Transit Anticipatory Bail- Transit bail is
protection from arrest for a certain definite
period as granted by the Court granting such
transit bail. He mere fact that an accused has
been granted transit bail, does not mean that
the regular court, under whose jurisdiction the
case would fall, would extend such transit bail
and would convert such transit bail into
anticipatory bail. Upon the grant of transit bail,
the accused person who has been granted such
transit bail, has to apply for anticipatory bail
before the regular court. Thus, there is no fetter
on the part of the High Court in granting a
transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants
to approach the Courts including High Courts
where the offence is alleged to have been
committed and case is registered.

Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Amita Garg & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the arresting authority/
court
concerned
with
the
following
conditions:-

1. that the applicant shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required;

2. that the applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the court;

4. that in default of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the investigating officer
shall be at liberty to file appropriate
application for cancellation of anticipatory
bail granted to the applicant;

5. that in case charge-sheet is submitted
the applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence during the trial;

6. that the applicant shall not pressurize/
intimidate the prosecution witness;

7. that the applicant shall appear before
the trial court on each date fixed unless
personal presence is exempted;

8. that in case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have
the liberty to cancel the bail.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 455
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5286
of 2022

Amita Garg & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, Sri Ajay Kumar Bashist
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Transit Anticipatory Bail- Transit bail is
protection from arrest for a certain definite
period as granted by the Court granting such
transit bail. He mere fact that an accused has
been granted transit bail, does not mean that
the regular court, under whose jurisdiction the
case would fall, would extend such transit bail
and would convert such transit bail into
anticipatory bail. Upon the grant of transit bail,
the accused person who has been granted such
transit bail, has to apply for anticipatory bail
before the regular court. Thus, there is no fetter
on the part of the High Court in granting a
transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants
to approach the Courts including High Courts
where the offence is alleged to have been
committed and case is registered.

Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Teesta Atul Seetalvad & anr. Vs State of Mah.
& ors., Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14 of
2014(Decided on 31.01.2014 by Bombay High
Court)

2. Nikita Jacob Vs State of Mah. & ors.,
Anticipatory
Bail
Application
No.
441
of
2021(Decided on 17.02.2021 by Bombay High
Court)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey and
Sri Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh, learned
counsels for the applicants and learned
A.G.A for the State.

2. The instant anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants, Amita Garg, Vashudev Garg,
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chaitanya Garg, Radhika, Sanjay Dixit,
Mohd. Gulzar Joieya and Vishan Singh,
with a prayer to release them on transit /
anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 444 of 2022,
Police Station- Mansarovar, Jaipur City
(South) dated 10.05.2022, under Sections-
504, 506, 384, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, during
pendency of trial.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the applicant no. 1 at present is aged about
58 years, the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the
sons and the applicant no. 4 is the daughter
of applicant no. 1 and the applicant nos. 2
and 4 are the directors of several companies
including the Rajdarbar Infotech Private
Ltd. Head Office of Rajdarbar Infotech Pvt.
Ltd., situated at Agra. The applicant nos. 5
and 7 are the employees of said company.
The applicant no. 6 was earlier director of
complainant's company. All the applicants
have good reputation and high moral value
in the society having business of real estate
and construction of the township as well as
colonies all over country in different cities.

4. Huge amount has been paid to the
opposite party no. 3, who is director of
Vastu Colonisers Private Ltd., having its
office at Jaipur through the M/S Pink City
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for providing the
land of 380 bighas at Jaipur for the
development of Township and the colonies.
However, till date only 80 bighas of land
has been provided and the money has not
been returned to the applicant's company
through the Pink City Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd.

5. Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
has lodged a First Information Report
against
the
opposite
party
no.
4
(Gyanchand Agrawal) and other persons at
Agra which has been registered as First
Information Report No. 0508 of 2021 on
11.12.2021 at Police Station - Hari Parvat,
Agra, under Sections - 120-B, 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC as they have cheated the
applicant's company and not provided the
land as agreed therefore, as a counter blast
First Information Report No. 444 of 2022
has been lodged by the opposite party no. 3
against the applicants and several other
persons only to create pressure upon them
to appear the court at Jaipur.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that the FIR has been lodged
at the Police Station- Mansarovar, Jaipur
City (South), Rajasthan and the applicants
are the residents of District - Agra in the
State of U.P. They are willing to appear
before the court concerned at Jaipur,
Rajasthan for the purpose of getting bail.
However, they may be granted transit
anticipatory bail for short time so that they
may appear before the competent court at
Jaipur under limited protection granted by
this court by way of time bound transit
anticipatory bail.

7. Learned A.G.A has opposed the
prayer made on behalf of the counsels for
the applicants and has submitted that this
Court has no jurisdiction to grant any
protection to the applicants. The offence
has taken place outside the state. They may
appear before the court concerned and
apply for bail / anticipatory bail and the
present application is not maintainable
before this Court.

8. After hearing counsels for the
parties, this court finds that there is no
legislation or law which defines ''transit or
anticipatory bail' in definitive or specific
terms. The 41st Law Commission Report in
1969 recommended the provision of
Anticipatory bail to safeguard the right to
life and personal liberty of a person under
8 All. Amita Garg & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, on
such
recommendation,
provision
of
Anticipatory Bail was inserted in Section
438. The term ''transit' means the act of
being moved from one place to another
while the word ''anticipatory bail' means a
temporary release of any accused person
who is anticipating arrest, therefore, transit
anticipatory bail refers to bail granted to
any person who is apprehending arrest by
police of a State other than the State he is
presently located in.

9. Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure specifies direction for
grant of bail to a person apprehending
arrest and moreover confers power only
upon the High Court and the Court of
Sessions to grant anticipatory or transit bail
if they deem fit. At the point when an
individual has the motivation to accept that
he might be arrested on an allegation of
having committed a non-bailable offence,
he may apply to the High Court or the
Court of Session for a grant of anticipatory
bail. The Court may, as it thinks fit, direct
that in case of such arrest, he will be
released on anticipatory bail.

10. Nonetheless, transit anticipatory
bill is different from ordinary bail.
Ordinary bail is granted after arrest,
releasing the accused from custody while
anticipatory
bail
is
granted
in
the
anticipation of arrest i.e., it precedes
detention of the accused and is effective
immediately at the time of the arrest. In
plain words, when an accused is arrested in
accordance with the order of the court and
whereas the accused needs to be tried in
some
other
competent
court
having
jurisdiction in the aforementioned matter,
the accused is given bail for the transitory
period i.e., the time period required for the
accused to reach that competent court from
the place he is arrested in.

11. It is to be noted that transit bail is
protection from arrest for a certain definite
period as granted by the Court granting
such transit bail. The mere fact that an
accused has been granted transit bail, does
not means that the regular court, under
whose jurisdiction the case would fall,
would extend such transit bail and would
convert such transit bail into anticipatory
bail. Upon the grant of transit bail, the
accused person, who has been granted such
transit bail, has to apply for anticipatory
bail before the regular court.

12. The regular court, would consider
such anticipatory bail, on its own merits
and shall decide such anticipatory bail
application. Therefore, it could be easily
said that transit bail is a temporary relief
which an accused gets for certain period of
time so that he/she could apply for
anticipatory bail before the regular court.

13. In the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Teesta Atul
Setalvad & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors. (vide Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 14 0f 2014, decided on January 31,
2014) it was held that the High Court of
one State can grant transit bail in respect of
a case registered within the jurisdiction of
another High Court in exercise of power
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It appears from the said
judgment that there is no fetter on the part
of the High Court in exercising the power
under Section 438 of the Code in granting
anticipatory bail for a limited period to
enable
the
applicant
to
move
the
appropriate Court as the gravity of pre-trial
arrest and the loss of liberty of the
individual cannot be compromised on the
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
anvil of the powers, competence and/or
jurisdiction of the Court. The relevant
excerpt
of
the
judgment
is
quoted
hereinbelow:-

7. In the case of N.K. Nayar
(supra) the Division Bench of the Bombay
Court has held that if the arrest is likely to
be affected within the jurisdiction beyond
High Court, then the concerned person may
apply to the High Court for anticipatory
bail even if the offence is committed in
soma state. However, the Division Bench in
the said case while exercising power under
Section
438
of
the
Code,
granted
anticipatory bail tor a peri0d or one month
so as to enable the applicants to.
appropriate Court. Thus, the Division
Bench of this Court has considered the
gravity of pre-trial arrest and loss of liberty
of an individual it a person is likely to be
falsely implicated in any other state and
therefore, in the case of N.K. Nayar
(supra),
the
Division
Bench
in
the
concluding para has granted relief of
anticipatory bail for a limited period.

8. Generally the powers f High
Courts in the cases of anticipatory bail are
limited to its territorial jurisdiction and the
power cannot be usurp by disregarding the
principle of territorial jurisdiction, which is
in the interest of the comity of the Courts.
However, temporary relief to protect liberty
and to avoid immediate arrest can be given
by this Court.

9. Thus, in view of the ratio laid
down in the case of N.K. Nayar (supra), I
grant transit bail for four weeks so as to
enable
the
applicant
to
approach
appropriate Court in Gujarat, on the terms
and conditions imposed in the interim order
dated 10th January, 2014, passed by this
Court. This order granting transit bail shall
remain in force till 28.02.2014. The
application is disposed of.

14. The aforesaid judgment of the
Bombay High Court was carried to the
Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition
No. 1770 of 2014. The Apex Court
declined to interfere with the said order by
making the following observations :-

"The matter relates to grant of
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bombay
High Court vide impugned order dated 31st
January, 2014 allowed the petitioners to
move before appropriate Court in Gujarat
for said relief and granted Transit Bail for
four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to
approach before the appropriate Court at
Gujarat. Having heard the learned Counsel
for the petitioners, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order.

However,
taking
into
consideration the nature of the case and
submission
made
on
behalf
of
the
petitioners, we extend the Transit Bail in
favour of petitioners upto 31st March, 2014
so as to enable the petitioners to approach
the appropriate Court in Gujarat. If such
petition is filed, the appropriate Court in
Gujarat
will
consider
the
same
independently without being influenced by
any observation made by the Bombay High
Court.

The question of law about
jurisdiction of High Court is kept open.
The special leave petition stands disposed
of."

15. In a recent judgment the Bombay
High Court in case of Nikita Jacob Vs.
The State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory
Bail Application No. 441 of 2021 decided
on 17.02.2021) the Bombay High Court
reiterated and adopted the same principle as
has been laid down in the case of Teesta
Atul Setalvad (supra) and passed the
following order:
8 All. Malik Ram @ Dinesh Vs. State of U.P.
459

"1. Thus, pending reference also
reliefs were granted by this Court in
exercise of powers u/s 438 of Cr.P.c. As
stated above, the Division Bench has also
granted such relief. The decision of Dr.
Augustine Francis Pinto and another
(supra) and Sandeep Lohariya (supra) was
considered by this Court, as stated above.
The co-accused who is apprehending arrest
in this case, is granted protection by
Aurangabad Bench of this Court on 16th
February 2021. The applicant has to make
arrangements to seek appropriate reliefs in
other State. Since the applicant would be
ultimately approaching the Court having
jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to
make any observation on the merits of the
case. In the light of factual matrix of the
case protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
can be granted to the applicant for
temporary period of three weeks.

2. Hence, I pass following order:

(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in
connection with C.R. No. 49 of 2021
registered at Special Cell, New Delhi, the
applicant be released on bail on executing
P.R Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with
one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) This protection is granted for a
period of three weeks from today to enable
the applicant to approach the competent
court for seeking appropriate relief ;

(iii) Anticipatory Bail Application is
disposed of."

16. In view of the law enunciated in
the above referred cases, there is no fetter
on the part of the High Court in granting a
transit anticipatory bail to enable the
applicants to approach the Courts including
High Courts where the offence is alleged to
have been committed and the case is
registered. There is no doubt that the right
to liberty is enshrined in Part-I1I of the
Constitution of India and such rights cannot
be impinged except by following procedure
established by law. This court finds that the
commercial transaction ensued between the
applicants and the complainant and there
are criminal cases lodged by the parties
against each other. It is a fit case where the
applicants should get the privilege of transit
pre-arrest bail in the light of the order
passed in the case of Nikita Jacob (supra).

17. Hence, this courts directs that in
the event of arrest of applicants in
connection with the F.I.R. No. 444 of 2022,
Police Station- Mansarovar, Jaipur City
(South) dated 10.05.2022, under Sections-
504, 506, 384, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, they
shall be released on transit bail on
executing personal Bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount;

(i) This protection is granted for a
period of four weeks from the date of this
order, to enable the applicant to approach
the
competent
Court
for
seeking
appropriate relief.

18. The application is allowed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 459
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 5798 of 2021

Malik Ram @ Dinesh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashish Raman Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties: