Karnataka High Court

Prashant vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808
                                                       CRL.P No. 200510 of 2025




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200510 OF 2025
                                    (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   PRASHANT S/O ERANNA DHAREPGOL,
                        AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
                        R/O. PLOT NO.15/16, AMRUT SPARSH HOSPITAL,
                        BESIDE OVERBRIDGE, BIDDAPUR COLONY,
                        KALABURAGI-585107.
                   2.   BHUVANESHWARI W/O PRASHANT DHAREPGOL,
                        AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
                        R/O. PLOT NO.15/16, AMRUT SPARSH HOSPITAL,
                        BESIDE OVERBRIDGE, BIDDAPUR COLONY,
                        KALABURAGI-585107.
                                                                     ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed   (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
by RENUKA
                   AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
KARNATAKA               ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI CITY,
                        NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP,
                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                        KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
                   2.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                        SATARA TALUKA POLICE STATION,
                        DIST. SATARA, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ASSP FOR R1;
                    V/O DATED 21.03.2025 SERVICE
                   OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808
                                    CRL.P No. 200510 of 2025




     THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS,2023
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO.0409/2024 OF
SATARA TALUKA POLICE STATION (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 376, 376(2)(n),
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTIONS 4, 8 AND 12 OF
POCSO ACT.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH


                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory

bail in Crime No.409/2024 of Satara Taluka Police Station

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of

POCSO Act.

Brief facts of the case:

2. It is the case of the prosecution that Smt.Channamma

Shivputra Totnak has filed a complaint alleging that her

minor daughter aged about 17 years has been sexually

assaulted by Rakesh Krushna Sonkamble. A case came

to be registered in Crime No.409/2024 by Satara Taluka

Police Station. During investigation, it is stated that the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

victim had been examined by the petitioners, when she

visited the hospital, namely, Amrut Sparsh Hospital

situated at Kalaburagi. Based on the statement of the

victim, the Satara Taluka Police Station had issued

summons to the petitioners to appear before them for

interrogation or investigation.

3. Heard Sri.Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri.Siddaling P.Patil, learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioners are Doctors. They are

having deep root in the society and they are permanent

residents of Kalaburagi. As per the summons, the

petitioners have to appear before the Satara Taluka

Police Station and they have to assist or co-operate with

the investigation. There may be chances of being

arrested in that case, therefore, a transit anticipatory bail

may be granted to the petitioners to go and appear

before the Investigating Officer at Satara Taluka Police

Station, Maharashtra and also accommodate them to

approach the jurisdictional Court for necessary relief.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further

submitted that petitioners may approach the jurisdictional

police for the purpose of investigation and they have not

been arraigned as accused. Such being the case,

granting transit anticipatory bail is not appropriate and

not proper. Hence, the same may be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and also gone through the summons issued by the

Satara Taluka Police Station and having gone through the

translated copies of the documents, it appears that

petitioners have been summoned to appear before them

for interrogation.

7. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRIYA

INDORIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos.47, 90

and 92, which reads as under:

"47. Despite the inclusion of the provision for anticipatory bail in the CrPC after the acceptance

(2024) 4 SCC 749

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

of the aforesaid recommendation, the expression "anticipatory bail" remained undefined in the CrPC.

This Court in Balchand Jain [Balchand Jain v. State of M.P., (1976) 4 SCC 572 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 689] observed that "anticipatory bail" means "bail in anticipation of arrest". This Court has exposited that an application for anticipatory bail could be made by the accused either at a stage before an FIR is filed or at a stage when an FIR is registered but the charge-sheet has not been filed, and the investigation is underway. Alternatively, it can be moved after the completion of investigation. The stage of investigation has a bearing on the conditions to be imposed while granting the relief of anticipatory bail.

90. The word "transit" is derived from the Latin word transitus which means passage from one place to another. Since the word "transit" is an undefined expression in CrPC, we may take recourse to the dictionary meaning of the word "transit". The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edn., Revised, defines the word "transit" to mean carrying of people or things from one place to another; the conveyance of passengers on public transport; an act of passing through or across a place. "Transited" or "transiting" would mean pass across or through. Similarly, the word "transition" means the process of changing from one state or condition to another. Likewise, the adjective "transitory" means not permanent;

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

short-lived. An useful example of the above expression is transit visa which means a visa allowing its holder to pass through a country only, not to stay there. The word "transit" has also been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edn., to mean the transportation of goods or person from one place to another; passage; the act of passing.

92. The Allahabad High Court in Amita Garg [Amita Garg v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 463] also noted that there is no legislation or law which defines transit or anticipatory bail in definitive or specific terms. Thereafter, the High Court proceeded to explain the term "transit" to mean the act of being moved from one place to another. Since the expression "anticipatory bail"

means granting bail to an accused person who is anticipating arrest, "transit anticipatory bail" would refer to bail granted to any person who is apprehending arrest by police of a State other than the State he is presently located in. On that basis, the Allahabad High Court explained "transit anticipatory bail" to mean protection from arrest for a certain definite period. The mere fact that an accused has been granted transit anticipatory bail does not mean that the regular court under whose jurisdiction the case would fall, shall extend such transit bail and convert the same into anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Allahabad High Court held that upon the grant of transit anticipatory bail, the accused person who has been granted such bail

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

has to apply for regular anticipatory bail before the competent court which would then consider such a prayer on its own merits. The Allahabad High Court has also held that transit anticipatory bail is a temporary relief which an accused gets for a certain period of time so that he can apply for anticipatory bail before the regular court. In this connection, Allahabad High Court heavily relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad [Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5140] . In that case, the Bombay High Court held that 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 the power under Section 438CrPC. The Bombay High Court was of the view that generally the power of a High Court to grant anticipatory bail is limited to its territorial jurisdiction and that the power cannot be usurped by disregarding the principle of territorial jurisdiction. Having said that, the High Court emphasised that temporary relief to protect liberty and to avoid immediate arrest can be given by the Bombay High Court.

8. On reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

it can be inferred that transit anticipatory bail can be

granted, if there is an reasonable apprehension being

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

arrested in connection with non bailable offences, stated

to have been committed in extra-territorial jurisdiction.

9. In the present case, the summons has been issued to the

petitioners who are the Doctors and they are having deep

root in the society and also permanent residents of

Kalaburagi. In case, if they are arrested in connection

with the said case, certainly, hardship would be caused to

them. In the meantime, it is appropriate to grant transit

anticipatory bail to appear before the said police station

and also take necessary steps in case if they are having

reasonable apprehension that there may be chances of

being arrested in connection with the said case to

approach the jurisdictional Court.

10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the

event of their arrest in Crime No.409/2025 by Satara Taluka

Police Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Sections 4, 8 and 12

of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1808

(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond

for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh

only) each with one surety each for the

likesum before the jurisdictional Satara police,

if need arises.