CASE TITLE:
Amita Garg And 6 Others Vs State Of U.P And 3 Others
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
July 06, 2022
BENCH:
Justice. Suresh Kumar Gupta
PARTIES:
Petitioner – Amita Garg & Others
Respondent – State of U.P & Others
SUBJECT
The plea had been filed by the petitioners who had approached the High Court of Allahabad to seek transit anticipatory bail with reference to the FIR registered against them at a police station in Rajasthan. The Court discussed the validity of the anticipatory given by a High Court that does not have jurisdiction.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the transit anticipatory bail application made by the applicants was maintainable or not?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- SECTION 120-B OF IPC,1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. Any person liable for the offence under this section is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years or more.
- SECTION 384 OF IPC, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for the offence of extortion. The same shall be imprisonment for period extending to three years or fine or both.
- SECTION 467 OF IPC, 1860:This section provides the punishment for the act of forgery of any valuable security,will etc., they shall be punished with imprisonment for a period extending up to ten years or life imprisonment with additional fine.
- SECTION 468 OF IPC, 1860:This section deals with the offence of committing forgery for the purpose of cheating and the same shall be punished with imprisonment for a period extending up to seven years and an additional fine.
- SECTION 504 IPC, 1860: This section provides that whoever intentionally insults with an intent to provoke any person so as to cause him to breach public peace shall be punishable with imprisonment extending up to a term of two years or fine or both.
- SECTION 506 OF IPC, 1860:This section provides with the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. The same shall be punishable with imprisonment extending up to two years or fine or both. When such an offence leads to or causes death or grievous hurt, the same would be punishable with imprisonment extending upto seven years or fine or both.
- SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C, 1973: This section deals as to the direction for granting a bail to a person apprehending arrest. It provides for the sessions court and the High Court to grant an anticipatory bail and if the court believes or thinks fit it shall grant the same.
OVERVIEW
- The applicants (hereafter called the petitioners)were the directors of various companies having business in realestate and construction of townships and colonies across the country.
- A huge amount had been paid to the respondents through M/S Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,for providing land in Jaipur for the development of colonies and townships. But the respondents failed to provide the promised land and also the money had not been returned.
- For the same Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had lodged an FIR against the respondents for cheating, but the respondents as a counter had filed another FIR so as to create pressure among the petitioners and appear for the same in Jaipur.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The counsel for the petitioner argued that FIR had been lodged in Jaipur provided the petitioners were residents of Agra and the respondents being influential persons had created an apprehension and thus led to the petitioners seeking the protection under the section 438 of Cr.P.C.
- The counsel further submitted that the petitioners were willing to appear before the said court of Jaipur but they sought protection.In such situations, a bail in transit shall be provided to them till they appeared before the concerned court of Jaipur.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel for the respondent, opposing the petitioners pleaded that the there was no issuance of warrant for arrest or any apprehension for the same.
- The counsel further submitted that the court did not have the jurisdiction to grant the bail or any protection to the petitioners.
- Thus, he stated that since the offence had taken place outside the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court the application for bail shall also be made before the court that had jurisdiction. And the application filed by the petitioners was not maintainable.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court after analysing both the counsels held that there isn’t a provision that separately provides for transit anticipatory bail. The only provision that provides for anticipatory bail is the section 438 of Cr.P.C, under which a bail can be directly granted when there is an apprehension of arrest.
- The court further statedthat the transit bail shall be for a limited period andit does not lead to the inference that the regular court that has to grant the anticipatory bail can just convert it into anticipatory bail. Rather the accused or the person making application has to file an application for the anticipatory bail to be granted under the regular court.
- The court relied upon the judgement made in the case Teesta Atul Setalvad & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and held that the High Courts have limitation as to grant anticipatory bail out of their jurisdiction and can only temporarily grant transit anticipatory bail to avoid any arrest before appearing in the regular court.
- The same principle was also laid down in a recent case Nikita Jacob Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Thus, the court relied upon the same and granted a period of four weeks so as to enable the applicants approach the regular court to seek the relief.
CONCLUSION
Thus, the high court can grant transit anticipatory bail in situations where there is an apprehension of arrest and the applicants shall further apply for the anticipatory under the regular or competent court for further relief.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
