- A request for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the applicants in connection with a FIR filed under Sections 504, 506, 384, 467, 468, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, was approved by Siddharth, J. of the Allahabad High Court.
- The opposite party 3, who is the director of Vastu Colonisers (P) Ltd., with its headquarters in Jaipur, has received a sizable sum of money via Pink City Infrastructure (P) Ltd. for supplying the 380 bighas of land in Jaipur for the development of Township and the colonies.
- The applicant's company has not received any of the money, and just 80 bighas of land have been supplied thus far.
- Pink City Infrastructure (P) Ltd. filed a police report in Agra under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC against the opposing party 4 and other individuals after they defrauded the applicant's company and failed to provide the land as agreed.
- Meanwhile, the opposing party 3 filed a counterblast FIR against the applicants and a number of other individuals in an effort to pressure them into appearing in court in Jaipur.
- The applicants are inhabitants of District — Agra in the State of U.P., according to the applicants' attorney, who also claims that the FIR has been filed at the police station. To obtain bail, they are willing to appear before the relevant court in Jaipur, Rajasthan.
- They may, however, be granted transit anticipatory bail for a brief period of time so they can appear before the relevant court in Jaipur while still enjoying the limited protection provided by this court's time-limited transit anticipatory bail.
- Additional Government Counsel has objected to the prayer made on behalf of the applicants' attorneys and argued that this Court lacks the authority to provide any form of protection for the applicants. The crime was committed outside of the state.
- After hearing from the parties, the court determined that there is no legislation or regulation that expressly or specifically defines "transit or anticipatory bail."
- The Court further stressed that a transit bail is protection from arrest for the duration of the time that the court has granted it.
- Just because an accused person has been granted transit bail does not automatically entail that the ordinary court, whose authority the matter would fall under, would extend that bail and turn it into anticipatory bail.
- After receiving transit bail, the accused individual is required to apply for anticipatory bail in front of the regular court.
- The Court also cited the Bombay High Court's ruling in Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Maharashtra, where it was determined that, in accordance with Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court of one State may grant transit bail in relation to a case registered under the purview of another High Court.
- The Supreme Court had declined to overturn the aforementioned order in an appeal. The Court granted the application after determining that there had been a commercial transaction between the applicants and the complainant, that the parties had each filed criminal complaints against the other, and that it was an appropriate situation for the applicants to be granted pre-arrest bail.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
