Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN:
1. MR. ANKIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O SRI. ASHOK KUMAR,
2. SMT. SAPNA NIMBAJIYA @ SAPNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O SRI. ASHOK KUMAR,
3. SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O SRI BHAWARLAL,
4. MISS MEGHAL A NIMBAJIYA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, Digitally D/O SRI. ASHOK KUMAR, signed by LAKSHMI T Location: ALL ARE RESIDING AT 55/12 TF 1, High Court of Karnataka 12TH CROSS, PARK CASTLE RESIDENCY, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 019. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NIREEKSHANA.K.EDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURESH BABU RAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY RABALE POLICE STATION, NEW MUMBAI, -2- REPRESENTED BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE NOT TO ARREST THE PETITIONER AND TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.31 OF 2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/W SECTION 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Apprehending arrest in a case registered at New Mumbai Police Station in Crime No.31/2025, petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The above case was registered against the petitioners on a complaint lodged by Simran Madan Gurav, for offences punishable under Section 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023. -3-
3. In her complaint, complainant has alleged that
her marriage was performed with Ankit Kumar i.e., petitioner No.1 on 21.07.2022 in the Court at Thane, however when she went to live in her matrimonial house, her in-laws sent her back to her parents house, saying no one knows anything about her marriage. She has alleged that her husband has physically abused and sent her out of the house and the matter was also reported to the police. Both of them agreed for mutual divorce and therefore she came to Bengaluru in the month of November, 2023 and since her husband apologized, she withdrew the said case and decided to continue the marital relationship with him. Thereafter, with the consent of both the families, both of them got married on 26.04.2024 and her father bore the marriage expenses to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, even thereafter her husband continued to assault her physically and all the accused have demanded dowry, threatened her etc. -4-
4. It appears that there is a serious matrimonial
discord between the parties, existing since 21.07.2022, the date on which the complainant is said to have contracted marriage with petitioner No.1. Petitioners are apprehending arrest, since the offence under section 85 of BNS, 2023 is non-bailable in nature.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit
that petitioners are residents of Bengaluru and they may be granted transit bail for a limited period so that they can travel to Mumbai and file necessary petition seeking anticipatory bail before the jurisdictional Court.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya indoria v. State of Karnataka and others etc., reported in 2024(1) Kar. L.R. SN 4(SC), the relevant para is extracted here under:- “We say so for the reason that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we hold that the Court -5-
of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such
accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail. Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and since we have extended the concept of access to justice to such a situation and bearing in mind Article 14 thereof it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail. Otherwise, in a deserving case, there is likelihood of denial of personal liberty as well as access to justice for, by the time the person concerned approaches the Court of competent jurisdiction to seek -6-
anticipatory bail. it may well be too late as he may be arrested. Needless to say, the Court granting transit anticipatory bail would obviously examine the degree and seriousness of the apprehension expressed by the person who seeks transit anticipatory bail: while the object underlying exercise of such jurisdiction is to thwart arbitrary police action and to protect personal liberty besides providing immediate access to justice though within a limited conspectus.”
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharth v. State
of U.P. reported in 2022(1) SCC 676 has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of constitutional mandate and the occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is heinous crime or there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or chances of accused absconding. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. -7-
8. Petitioners are seeking bail for a limited period so as to approach the jurisdictional Court. Considering the
facts and circumstances, there is no harm in granting
transit anticipatory bail to the petitioners for a limited period. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Petitioners are granted transit anticipatory bail for a period of 14 days.
(iii) In the event of arrest of petitioners by the
police within the said period, in Crime No.31/2025 registered at New Mumbai Police Station, they shall be released on their executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with a surety for the likesum. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1