Gujarat High Court

Mansi Jimit Sanghavi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 2022

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

      R/CR.MA/13550/2022                              ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13550 of 2022

==========================================================
                           MANSI JIMIT SANGHAVI
                                   Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANMOL SUROLLIA(9379) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR L B DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                               Date : 03/08/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anmol Surollia for the applicants and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of the

respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi waives service of rule on behalf of the

respondent-State.

3. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, the applicants pray for being granted transit bail for a

period of 30 days, more particularly to approach the competent Court

within the Maharashtra State, since the applicants apprehend their arrest in

connection with investigation, with regard to unfortunate death on account

of suicide of one Mr. Jimit Shanghavi, husband of applicant No.1 herein and

son-in-law of applicant No.2 herein.

R/CR.MA/13550/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Anmol Surollia for the applicants would

submit that while undoubtedly, to the best of knowledge of the applicants,

there is no FIR registered by the police authorities with regard to the death

of Mr. Jimit Shanghavi, wherein the present applicants have been arraigned

as accused, but at the same time, based upon the news papers reports, more

particularly since such reports inter alia seem to state that the deceased had

left behind a suicide note, probably implicating the applicants, therefore the

applicants have a reasonable apprehension that they would be arrested in

connection with investigation into the said suicide. Learned Advocate

therefore would submit that the applicants may be protected for some

reasonable period, during which period they can approach the concerned

Court for preferring an appropriate application. Learned Advocate Mr.

Anmol Surollia has in support of his submissions relied upon the decision of

the High Court of Bombay in case of N.K. Nayar and others Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 1985 CriLJ 1887.

5. This application is opposed by learned APP Mr. Dabhi appearing on

behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that while an application

praying for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest, even without an FIR is

now permissible, but at the same time, an application for transit bail, may

not be considered by this Court, more particularly in absence of there being

an FIR, the applicants may not be able to contend that there is a reasonable

R/CR.MA/13550/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

apprehension of their arrest. Learned APP would also point out that while

the present application had been preferred on 19.07.2022 and whereas this

Court had heard the present application on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022 and

had adjourned the matter to today, but even today, there is no information

provided by the applicants that any FIR has been registered. Having regard

to such submissions, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that

apprehension of the applicants, of impending arrest, not being supported by

any material, this Court may not entertain the present application and may

not grant transit anticipatory bail to the present applicants.

6. Heard learned Advocate for the parties and perused the documents

on record.

7. It appears that the applicant No.1 was married to one Mr. Jimit

Shanghavi, who was a resident of Bombay and whereas the said Mr. Jimit

Shanghavi had unfortunately committed suicide on 13.07.2022. It appears

that there are news papers reports, which would show that the late Mr. Jimit

Shanghavi had written a suicide note and whereas he had inter alia

mentioned about domestic disputes resulting in depression and on account

of which he was committing an act in question. The applicants, as noted

hereinabove, are the wife and father-in-law, respectively. At this stage, it

needs to be reiterated that the law, with regard to apprehending arrest an

R/CR.MA/13550/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

application for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail, is by now well settled

that a person is entitled to approach Sessions Court or High Court or even

Hon'ble Apex Court, as the case may be, praying for grant of appropriate

protection from arrest inspite of there being no FIR registered against the

such person. The question is that if a person could be protected by a High

Court in case of apprehension of his/her being arrested even in absence of

FIR, would it be justifiable for the High Court to grant protection to a

person who apprehends his/her arrest in a different State and in case no

FIR has been registered till the hearing of case in taken up, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the question has been answered by a Division Bench

of the High Court of Bombay in the judgment of N.K. Nayar (supra) as

relied upon by learned Advocate for the applicants. In the said decision the

Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was concerned with an

application by a person to whom a notice had been issued by the Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner of Gujarat State, and whereas the applicant

therein had apprehended that qua having committed offence under the

Provident Funds Act, he would be arrested upon entering into Gujarat

State. The Hon'ble Division Bench had, in the said decision inter alia, noted

as thus :

"...The provisions for the grant of anticipatory bail are contained in Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. An application for such type of bail can be made to the High Court or to the Court of Session whenever a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested

R/CR.MA/13550/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. Thus, the real cause for making an application under Section 438 is the contemplated arrest of a person. If this arrest is likely to be effected within the jurisdiction of this Court, we think that the concerned person should have the remedy of applying to this Court for anticipatory bail. This is more so when the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , has observed in para 6 as follows:

The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest.

Thus an order of anticipatory bail would have a relevancy to the moment of arrest of the concerned person. Consequently this Court would have jurisdiction if a person is likely to be, arrested at a place within, the jurisdiction of this Court. We may with advantage refer to a few decisions of the other High Courts which have taken a similar view. For example, Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka reported in 1984 Cri LJ 757, and the Calcutta High Court in the case of B. R. Sinha v. State reported in 1982 Cri LJ 61, have taken a view similar to the one which we have taken. There is also a decision of the Delhi High Court on the same lines. It would thus be clear that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain both the applications even if the offences are said to have been committed outside the State of Maharashtra."

8. Having regard to the discussion of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the

Bombay High Court referred to hereinabove, and further considering the

legal proposition that if for an offence of the like nature which had been

R/CR.MA/13550/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

committed within the State of Gujarat, this Court being competent to decide

the application and being competent to grant anticipatory bail to the said

applicants, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would also be

competent for this Court to grant transit anticipatory bail in favour of the

applicants even where there is no FIR filed against the applicants in a State

other then the State of Gujarat and whereas the applicants have only

projected reasonable apprehension of their arrest before this Court.

9. Having regard to the same, this application deserves to be allowed