Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nitin Raj vs State Of Haryana (2025:Rj-Jd:28984) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:28984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6109/2025
Nitin Raj S/o Paras Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Gali No. 1
Gandhipura , Bjs Colony Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Haryana, Through Sho, Cyber Crime Police Station,
Gurugram, Haryana
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shobha Prabhakar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
04/07/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. first transit anticipatory bail has
been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS ('438 Cr.P.C.')
apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.318/2024 dated
26.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Police
Station, Gurugram for the offences under Sections 318(4) of the
BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is under apprehension that he would be arrested while commuting
from his place of residence i.e. Jodhpur to the Cyber Crime Police
Station, Gurugram where the FIR has been lodged against him for
the above-said offence. She further submits that the petitioner
has no criminal antecedents. She submits that the petitioner has
been duly served with a Notice dated 20.11.2024 under Section
41-A of Cr.P.C. whereupon, the petitioner is inclined to join the
investigation. Thus, the petitioner may be granted transit
anticipatory bail for a limited period to travel to Gurugram to
[2025:RJ-JD:28984] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6109/2025]
comply with the Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and approach
the competent Court in Haryana for appropriate legal remedy.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
4. This Court finds that though the Notice dated 20.11.2024
under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. has been duly served upon the
petitioner, the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that
such notice was served upon him at a belated stage and therefore,
he has filed the present transit anticipatory bail application after
almost 8 months from the date of issuance of such notice.
Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to
demonstrate the reason as to why the applicant apprehends arrest
despite knowing the fact that almost 8 months 7 days have
passed from the date of issuance of the aforesaid notice.
5. This Court also takes into consideration the case of Priya
Indoria v. The State Of Karnataka : 2023 INSC 1008,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"36. In view of what we have discussed above, we are of the
view that considering the constitutional imperative of
protecting a citizen's right to life, personal liberty and dignity,
the High Court or the Court of Session could grant limited
anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under
Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of justice with respect to
an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said
Court, and subject to the following conditions:
(i) Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the
investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of
the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing,
though the Court in an appropriate case would have the
discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.
(ii) The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record
reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state
arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail
or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of
the investigation.
(iii) The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence
has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the
[2025:RJ-JD:28984] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6109/2025]
scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to
Section 438 of CrPC.
(iv) The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court
regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court
which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be -
a. a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty
and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is
registered;
b. the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or
impediments owing to arbitrariness;
c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking
extraterritorial limited anticipatory bail."
6. This court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner
has not been able to demonstrate before this court that the
petitioner has a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal
liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is
registered or that he faces threat of immediate arrest. Moreover,
the petitioner has admittedly been served Notice dated
20.11.2024 under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., wherein, it was specifically
directed to the petitioner to remain present at Cyber Police
Station, Gurugram on 29.11.2024 for interrogation, however, he
has not complied with the same till date and no reasonable
explanation has been submitted by the petitioner for such failure.
7. As an upshot of the above and keeping in view the ratio of
the afore-cited judgment as well as the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court finds no justifiable grounds so as to grant
transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Resultantly, the instant anticipatory bail application is
dismissed.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
236-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
