High Court Has Power To Grant Transit Anticipatory Bail In Offences Registered Outside Its Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC
⚖️ Issue before the Court
The question was whether a High Court has the power to grant “transit anticipatory bail” to a person when the FIR is registered in another State / outside its territorial jurisdiction.
🚨 What is Transit Anticipatory Bail?
Anticipatory Bail (Sec. 438 CrPC): Protection granted before arrest when someone fears being taken into custody.
Transit Anticipatory Bail: Temporary protection granted by a court not having jurisdiction over the place of offence, only to enable the accused to approach the competent court (in the State where FIR is lodged).
So, it is not a final bail order, but an interim shield against arrest while moving to the proper court.
🏛️ Allahabad HC Ruling
The Allahabad High Court held that:
A High Court has the power to grant transit anticipatory bail even if the FIR is registered outside its jurisdiction.
This is necessary to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution).
Denying such power would make a citizen vulnerable to arrest while traveling to the court of competent jurisdiction.
📜 Supporting Case Laws
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 (SC)
Landmark case on anticipatory bail.
SC held that anticipatory bail is meant to protect the individual from unnecessary arrest and harassment.
This principle extends to the idea of transit protection.
2. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 (SC)
SC expanded on the scope of anticipatory bail.
Emphasized that personal liberty should not be curtailed unnecessarily.
Transit anticipatory bail is consistent with this protection.
3. Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023 INSC 1008, SC)
Supreme Court formally recognized transit anticipatory bail.
Held that Sessions Courts and High Courts can grant such interim protection, even outside jurisdiction, to safeguard the accused until they approach the appropriate court.
This judgment cleared earlier doubts and now guides High Courts like Allahabad HC.
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260 (SC)
SC held that arrest should not be mechanical; liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed unnecessarily.
The principle supports granting temporary protection in transit situations.
🔎 Reasoning of Allahabad HC
Liberty vs. Technical Jurisdiction: Courts must strike a balance. Jurisdictional limits cannot be used to defeat fundamental rights.
Transit Bail is Temporary: It does not interfere with investigation or jurisdiction of the court where FIR is filed.
Access to Justice: Without transit bail, an accused may be arrested en route and denied the chance to approach the proper court.
✅ Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court affirmed that it has the power to grant transit anticipatory bail even in offences registered outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Such orders are temporary.
The accused must approach the court having jurisdiction over the FIR within the time granted.
The ruling ensures protection of liberty (Art. 21) while respecting territorial jurisdiction.
👉 In simple words: If an FIR is filed in another State, you can still approach your local High Court for transit anticipatory bail, so that you won’t be arrested before reaching the concerned court in the other State.
RELATED Blog
0 comments