INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBA

Y BENCHATAURANGABAD

965ANTICIPATORYBAILAP
LICATIONNO.154OF2021

SHANTANUSHIVL
ALMULUK VERSUS
THESTATEOFMAHARAS
HTRA
.
Mr.S.S.Jadhav,Advocatea/
bMr.R.P.Patwardhan,Advocateforap
licant Mr.S.Y.Mahajan,AP
forrespondent
.

CORAM :
SMT.VIBHAKANKANWADI
,J. DATE:

16thFEBRUARY,2021.

PERCOURT:

1 HeardlearnedAdvocateapearingf

ortheaplicant. Learned AP

waivesnoticeforrespondent/State.

Theaplicantisseekingtransit

anticipatorybailinconnectionwithCr
imeNo.49/2021registeredatPolice

Station,SpecialCel,New

Delhi,fortheofencepunishableunderSe

ction 153-Aand120-

BoftheIndianPenalCode.

2 The learned Advocate for the

aplicant submits that the

aplicantisresidentofBedandtheofenc

ehasbenregisteredatNew Delhi.

Itwouldtaketimeforhim toreachtoNew

Delhiandengagean

Advocateandtofileanaplicationforan

ticipatorybail.Healsosubmitsthat
 2 ABA_154_2021

the mater pertains to the three

disputed farmers’laws ,which was

introducedasanordinance.

ThefarmersareprotestingsinceSeptemb

er,

2020.Someonlinefoundations,whoaresu

portingtheprotestsbyfarmers had

cometogether. Indian

environmentaland Farmer’sco-

aliation was

joinedbyXRIndia.Presentap

licantisoneofthefoundermemberanditi

statedthatXRIndiaisworkingforenviro

nmentforlongtime. Aplatform

wascreated.

Variousinformationwasdisplayedonong

oingprotest. The

learnedAdvocatefortheaplicantfurthe

rsubmitedthatlateronaplatform

hasbencreated,whichisnow

knownasTokKit,whereinonecouldgetat
 3 ABA_154_2021

oneplace,linksto althemovementsand

protestsand thelinksto the

websiteoftheparticipatingfoundation

s.ItwastranspiredthatoneAskIndia

WhyFoundation washandled

bypoeticjusticefoundation from

Canada.

TherewasalinktoAskIndiaWhyFoundatio

npageonthetokkitanditis

statedthatoncethatpagewasopenedther

ewaslinktothepoeticjustice

foundation,andoncethatpagewasopened

therewasalinkhavingreference

totheKhalistanmovementandnow

theStateiscalingalthoseactivitiesas

teroristsactivitiesand

underthosecircumstancestheDelhipoli

cehave

lodgedFirstInformationReportagainst

unknownpersons.Theap licantis

aprehendinghisarestinconnectionwith

thesaidofence.Herequeststhat
 4 ABA_154_2021

suficienttime be given to aproach the

competentCourtforseking

apropriaterelief.
 5 ABA_154_2021

3 LearnedAP

hastakenobjectionaboutfilingofthea

plication

inthisCourt,thejurisdictionofthisC

ourtandalsothefactthateventhe

copyoftheFIRhasnotbeenannexedinorde

rtocometotheconclusionthat

theaplicanthasanykindofaprehension

ofarest.Itisalsosubmitedthat

iftheaplicantishavingaprehensionof

arestatthehandsofDelhiPolice,

thentheDelhiPoliceoughttohavebeenm

adepartytotheproceedings.

Reliancehasbeenplacedonthedecision

bythisCourtatPrincipalSeatin

AugustineFrancisPintoandOthersvs.T

heStateofMaharashtraandOthers,

MANU/MH/2187/2017,whereinithasbeenh

eldthatjurisdictionforcontrol

andinquiryofCriminalCourtsshouldbe

localcommissionofcrimeandnot

residenceofaccusednorplacewherehem
 6 ABA_154_2021

ightchosetoresideandfoundin

otherpartofcountry.Underthefactsoft

hecasebeforetheCourtthen,it

washeldthatthepetitionsfortransita

nticipatorybailwereheldtobenot

maintainable.

Reliancewasplaced on

thedecision in Sandeep Sunilkumar

Lohariyavs.JawaharChelaram

BijlaniandSureshandOthers,

[orderdated

01.08.2013passedinSpecialLeavetoAp e

al(Cri.)No.4829of2013]by

Hon’bleSupremeCourt.

Hefurthersubmitedthattheobser

vationshavebenmadein

AugustineFrancisPinto’scasethatinvi

ew ofSandeepSunilkumarLohariya’s
 7 ABA_154_2021

casetheview

expressedbytheDivisionBenchinN.K.Na

yarandothersvs. The State

ofMaharashtra

[MANU/MH/0534/1985],doesnothold the

ground,andtherefore,relyingupon

SandeepLohariya’scase(supra)and

AugustineFrancisPinto’scase(supra)h

eprayedfortherejectionofthebail

aplication.

4 Attheoutset,itistobenotedthat

theaprehensionofarestis

thekeyfactor,thatis,requiredtobeco

nsideredinsuchap licationsandeven

incatenaofJudgments,theHon’bleApex

Courthasstatedthatfilingofcopy

oftheFIR isnotmandatory.

Theaplicantintheaplicationhasgiven

reasonsastowhyheisaprehendinghisar

estandthatissuficient.The

FIRislodgedatNew

Delhiandanyregularaplicationforant
 8 ABA_154_2021

icipatorybail

underSection438oftheCodeofCriminalP

rocedurewouldbeconsideredby

DelhiHighCourt,andtherefore,thisCo

urtcannotgointoanyofthemerits

ofthecase.Theonlyfacthatisrequired

tobeconsideredastowhetherthe

aplicantcanbegrantedlibertybywayof

transitbailtoaproachtothe

competentauthorityforseekingap

ropriaterelief.

5 Aplicantisap

rehendinghisarestatBeed.Itissubmit

edthat oficersfrom

DelhiPolicearealreadyinBed.Theywil

havetotakehelpof

localpoliceforanyoperationtobecond

uctedintheinvestigationatBed.

Undersuchcircumstance,aplicationca

nnotberejectedonlyontheground
 9 ABA_154_2021

thatDelhiPolicearenotpartytothisapl

ication. Thepurposeofthebail

aplicationwoulditselfgetfrustrated.

6 In

AugustineFrancisPinto’scasetheobse

rvationsthosewere

madebyHon’bleApexCourtinitsorderda

ted14.06.2013wereconsidered.

ThesaidorderpassedbyHon’bleApexCou

rtismadeavailablebylearned

AP.Folowingobservationsweremadebyt

heHon’bleApexCourt-

“Itisdificultocomprehendunde
rwhatprovisionsandunder
whatauthorityoflaw
suchanap licationwasevenregister
edbythe High CourtofMadhya
Pradesh. In ourview itisan
absolutely
shockingorderwhichhasbeenbrough
ttothenoticeofthisCourt, hence
we deem itap ropriate to directthe
Petitioner-State of
MaharashtraasalsothePetitioner-
complainant/sonofthedeceased
 1 ABA_154_2021
0
toimplead theHigh
CourtofMadhyaPradesh in
thesepetitions.
ThereafteranoticebeissuedtotheH
ighCourtofMadhyaPradesh through
the Registrarindicating to
filereply asto how thebail
aplicationoftherespondentno.1/a
cusedwasevenregisteredby
theHighCourtbeforeitwastakenupb
ytheBenchandalsoasto whetherthe
Bench wasap rised ofthe
factofrejection ofhis
anticipatorybailaplicationbythe
HighCourtofBombay,whichwas
upheldbytheSupremeCourtofIndiao
ntwoocasions.”

Butthereafterthesaidmaterwasl

istedforfurtherarguments

on12.07.2013beforeHon’bleSupremeCou

rt. Underthosecircumstances

uponthequerymadetolearnedAP

hesubmitedthathecouldgetthelast
 1 ABA_154_2021
1
orderfrom

thewebsiteoftheApexCourtinconnectio

nwiththesaidcase

waspassedon01.08.2013,whereinfolowi

ngobservationshavebeenmade.

“TheorderpassedbytheHighCourtwa
sinregardtoatransit
bailandtheobservationsmadebythisCo
urtintheorderdated14th June,2013
werewith regard to anticipatory
bailand hencethe
observationsmadebythisCourtintheor
derdated14th June,2013or
inanyotherorderpassedbythisCourtin
thesematers,wilnot prejudicein
anywaytheclaim
oftherespondentNo.1foreither
temporaryorregularbailbeforetheTri
alCourtortheHighCourt
whichmaybedecidedonitsownmerits.

Wealso
makeitclearthatobservationsin
theorder
passedbythisCourton14th June,2013
orinanyotherorderinthese
caseswillalsonotcauseanyprejudi
cetotheclaim ofanyother
acusedinthismaterforanticipator
yorregularbailbeforetheHigh
 1 ABA_154_2021
2
Courtoranyotherap ropriateCourt.

The special leave petitions as

also the criminal
miscellaneouspetitionsstanddispose
dof.

W.P.(CRL)No.83of2013.

Listhiswritpetitionaftertwow
eeks.”

7 Itwilnotbeoutofplacetomention

herethatintheorder

passedon14.06.2013bytheHon’bleSupre

meCourttherespondentNo.1-

accusedthereinwasdirectedtosurender

beforetheTrialCourtinStateof

Maharashtraandthatordercametobepas

sedinviewoftheobservationthat

theaplicationforanticipatorybailfi

ledbythataccusedwasrejectedbythis
 1 ABA_154_2021
3
Courtand thatrejection wasupheld

byHon’bleSupremeCourton two

occasions.

Butthenintheorderdated01.08.2013it

hasbeenmentioned thatinview

ofthesaidorderdated14.06.2013theres

pondentNo.1had surendered,and

therefore,the Special Leave

Petitions have become infructuous.

8 FactsbeforeHon’bleSupremeCour

tinSandeepLohariya’scase

werethattheofenceunderSection302,12

0-BreadwithSection34ofthe

IndianPenalCodeandSection3and25oft

heIndianArmsActokplaceat

PoliceStation,Washi,NaviMumbai,Mah

arashtra.ThentherespondentNo.1

(accused)beforeHon’bleSupremeCourt

hadap roachedthisCourtandhis

aplicationforanticipatorybailwasre

jectedon25.02.2013.Thesaidorder

wasupheld by Hon’ble Supreme Courtin

 1 ABA_154_2021
4
SpecialLeave Petition (Cri.)

No.2790of2013dated29.04.2013.Therea

fter,againsecondSpecialLeave

Petition also came to be dismissed on

13.05.2013. Itapearsthatby

supressing those facts the accused had

filed aplication for transit

anticipatorybailwhichcametobeenter

tainedbyHighCourtofMadhya Pradesh.

No doubt,it is observed by Hon’ble

Supreme Courtthat, “Thereafter, the

respondent no.1/accused apears to

have filed an

aplicationforanticipatorybailinthe

natureoftransitbail,whichinour

viewhasnoprovisionundertheCodeofCri

minalProcedure,1973.”
 1 ABA_154_2021
5
9 ThoughtheobservationsofHon’bl

eSupremeCourtarebinding

onthisCourt,hereinview

ofthefactthatthematerwasadjourneda

nd

thenHon’bleSupremeCourtwhilepassin

gfurtherorderinthesamemater

observingthat,“wealsomakeitclearth

atobservationsintheorderpassed

bythisCourton14th June,2013orinanyoth

erorderinthesecaseswilalso

notcauseanyprejudicetotheclaim

ofanyotheraccusedinthismaterfor

anticipatoryorregularbailbeforethe

HighCourtoranyotherap ropriate

Court.”;tomymind,haskepthesaidpoin

topen.

10 Accordingtomyview,thelaw

laiddownbytheDivisionBench

ofthisCourtinN.K.Nayar’scase(supra

)wouldthenbeaplicable,wherein

ithasbenobserved-
 1 ABA_154_2021
6
“Whileconsideringthequestion
astowhethertheprovisionsof
Section438oftheCodeofCriminalCo
de,1973canbeutilizedby
thisCourtwhenthecaseorthecontem
platedcriminalproceedings
wouldbeinsomeotherState,hasheld
that,ifarrestislikelytobe
efectedwithinthejurisdictionoft
hisCourt,theconcernedperson
shouldhavetheremedyofap lyingtot
hisCourtforanticipatorybail
evenifofencemighthavebeencommit
edinsomeotherState.Itis
furtherobservedthat,consequentl
ythisCourtwouldhavejurisdiction
ifapersonislikelytobearrestedat
aplacewithinthejurisdictionof
thisCourt.”
 1 ABA_154_2021
7
1

Further,recentlyinAparnaPurohitvs.

TheStateofMaharashtra

[CriminalAnticipatoryBailAp licatio

n(ST.)No.1468of2021]thisCourtat

PrincipalSeatpassedanorderon20.01.2

021grantingtransitanticipatory

bailtotheaplicantherein.Afterthede

cisioninAugustinePinto’scasealso

transitanticipatorybailisgrantedby

thisCourt.Itap earsthatorderpassed

byHon’bleSupremeCourtinSandeepLohar

iya’scaseon01.08.2013wasnot

broughtto the notice ofthisCourtin

Augustine FrancisPinto‘scase.

Therefore,withoutadjudicating

themateron merits,justto enablethe

aplicantoap

roachthecompetentCourtforseekingap

ropriaterelief,the

aplicantcanbegrantedreliefasprayed
 1 ABA_154_2021
8
.Hence,folowingorder.

ORDER

1 Intheeventofarestoftheaplican

tinconnectionwithCrime

No.49/2021registered

atPoliceStation,SpecialCel,New

Delhi,forthe

ofencepunishableunderSection153-

Aand120-BoftheIndianPenalCode,

theaplicantbereleased on bailon

furnishingP.R.Bond in thesum of

Rs.50,0 0/-

(RupeesFiftyThousandonly)withoneor

moresuretiesinthe likeamount.

2 Thisprotectionisgrantedforape

riodoftendaysfrom todayto enable the

aplicant to ap roach the competent

Court for seeking

 10 ABA_154_2021

apropria
terelief
.

3 Aplicationstandsdisposedofacc
ordingly.

4 Alconcernedwilactonauthentica
tedcopyofthisorder.

(Smt.VibhaKankan
wadi,J.)

agd