Mr. Aditya Purohit vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3129 UK

                     Office Notes,
                    reports, orders
SL.                 or proceedings
         Date                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 or directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      13.10.2023                       ABA No. 856 of 2023
                                       Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Aditya Purohit, learned counsel appear for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder appears for the State.

2. By the instant application, preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with zero FIR-NIL/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 406 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Ramnagar, District-Nainital on the ground that this zero FIR was registered at Police Station Ramnagar, and subsequently, this FIR has been transferred to Police Station-Timarpur, Gopalpur, Delhi, and therefore, for availing appropriate remedy in the appropriate Court of NCT Delhi, the applicant be enlarged on transit anticipatory bail for fifteen days.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received by SHO, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital on 20.06.2023, wherein it was alleged that on 07.08.2022, the applicant took the complainant to Delhi with false promise of marriage, where he opened a food supply centre, in which the complainant worked, and for ten months, there was physical relationship of the applicant with the complainant. Thereafter, a Misc. Application No. 261/2023 titled "Smt. Manju vs. Kishan Kumar" was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital, which was allowed on 31.07.2023, and directions were issued to the SHO, Police Station Ramnagar to carry-out the investigation, and thereafter, in compliance of the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SHO, Police Station-Ramnagar, District Nainital registered a zero FIR on 07.08.2023 against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 406 and 506 of I.P.C.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and earlier to this zero FIR, on 06.10.2022, the complainant lodged FIR No. 0336/2022 at Police Station Timarpur, North District, Delhi under Sections 392, 394 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present complainant was married having three children aged about 20, 18 and 16 years, and she herself preferred a Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking decree of divorce, and the Family Court, Nainital on 24.11.2022 decreed the said suit and the marriage was dissolved and divorce was granted.

5 On the previous date, the State counsel informed this Court that this zero FIR has been transferred to P.S. Timarpur, Gopalpur, Delhi and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Anticipatory Bail Application. In response to this, counsel for the applicant submits that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Application was moved before the Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand, and the same was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital and, thereafter, the zero FIR was registered at Police Station Ramnagar, however, the same is now sent to Police Station Timarpur, Gopalpur, Delhi. Counsel for the applicant further submits that no doubt, that FIR has been transferred to Police Station Timarpur, Golapur, Delhi and the applicant should avail remedy before the appropriate Court of NCT Delhi, however, since he has to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate Court, he may be granted transit anticipatory bail. In reference to this, counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amita Garg and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All

463.

6. In a recent judgment the Bombay High Court in case of Nikita Jacob v. State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 441 of 2021, decided on 17.02.2021) the Bombay High Court reiterated and adopted the same principle as has been laid down in the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. State of Maharashtra (vide Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14 of 2014, decided on January 31, 2014) and passed the following order:

"1. Thus, pending reference also reliefs were granted by this Court in exercise of powers u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. As stated above, the Division Bench has also granted such relief. The decision of Dr. Augustine Francis Pinto (supra) and Sandeep Lohariya (supra) was considered by this Court, as stated above. The co-accused who is apprehending arrest in this case, is granted protection by Aurangabad Bench of this Court on 16th February 2021. The applicant has to make arrangements to seek appropriate reliefs in other State. Since the applicant would be ultimately approaching the Court having jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to make any observation on the merits of the case. In the light of factual matrix of the case protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C can be granted to the applicant for temporary period of three weeks.

2. Hence, I pass following order:

(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with C.R. No. 49 of 2021 registered at Special Cell, New Delhi, the applicant be released on bail on executing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) This protection is granted for a period of three weeks from today to enable the applicant to approach the competent court for seeking appropriate relief;

(iii) Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of."

7. In view of the law enunciated in the above referred cases, there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicant to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed and the case is registered. There is no doubt that the right to liberty is enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution of India and such rights cannot be impinged except by following procedure established by law.

8. I have gone through the judgments, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the present applicant, and since in this particular case, an Application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was moved before the Court under the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand, which was allowed and pursuant thereto, the zero FIR was registered and subsequently, the FIR was transferred to the concerned police station of Delhi, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to get transit anticipatory bail of fifteen days in order to enable him to approach the appropriate Court of NCT Delhi.

9. Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant-Kishan Kumar alias Krishna Kumar in connection with FIR No. NIL/2023, Police Station-Ramnagar, District Nainital, under Sections- 376, 323, 406 and 506 I.P.C., he shall be released on transit bail on executing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount. This protection is granted for a period of fifteen days from the date of the order, to enable the applicant to approach the competent Court for seeking appropriate relief.

10. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J)

13.10.2023 Rathour