IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 870 of 2009 Date of decision: 07.10.2009 Shri Sanjay Gupta and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners :Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for grant of transitory anticipatory bail in FIR No. 44 of 2009, registered under Sections 316,323,420, 498-A, 506 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in case Crime No. 41/2009 at Mahila Thana, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the State of Himachal Pradesh was impleaded as respondent No. 2 on 5.10.2009 and Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Court on 5.10.2009. 2. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that petitioners No. 1 & 2 are permanent residents of Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and they are serving as Lectures in Government Degree College, Palampur, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner No. 3 is residing with petitioners No. 1 & 2 for the last about four months. 3. The complainant Smt. Reenu Mishra is the sister- in-law of petitioners No. 1 & 2 and daughter-in-law of petitioner No.3 and she has falsely implicated petitioners in the aforesaid case. The petitioners are innocent. They are apprehending their arrest at Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, they have filed the petition in this Court for grant of transitory anticipatory bail so that they are in a position to approach concerned court where alleged offence has been committed. It has been submitted that at present the petitioners are residing at Palampur and at that place they are apprehending their arrest in FIR No. 44 of 2009, registered at Mahila Thana, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case this Court is inclined to grant transitory bail to the petitioners then no notice is required to be issued to State of Uttar Pradesh at this stage. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that he is not in a position to submit the facts before this Court without verifying facts from the record which is not with him for the simple reason that even as per the petitioners the case has been registered at Mahila Thana, Kanpur Nagar. Mr. Bansal has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled …3… to transitory anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions for grant of transitory anticipatory bail has relied upon two cases of this court titled Sanjeev Chandel Vs. State of H.P. and another, 2003 CRI.L.J. 935(HP) and case title Ram Kishan Vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2003(HP) 573. 6. In Sanjeev Chandel, FIR No. 101/2002 was registered under Sections 363,366 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code at Police Station Kangan, Srinagar. The learned Single Judge of this Court after relying upon Cr.M.P.(M) No. 585 of 2001 decided on 24.05.2001 has held that this Court can entertain an application for grant of interim bail to the accused to enable him to surrender before the court having jurisdiction in a case wherein he is accused of commission of offence and allowed the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for limited period. 7. In Ram Kishan supra, the case was registered within the State of Punjab outside jurisdiction of this Court. It was held that for limited purpose for granting interim anticipatory bail to enable the accused to surrender before the competent court and apply for bail, the perusal of the case file, as may be maintained by the Investigating Agency, does not appear to be necessary. The learned Single Judge in Ram Kishan supra ultimately granted bail for limited period. …4… 8. The case is registered at Mahila Thana, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest at Palampur within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of limited order which is intended to be passed, no separate notice is required to be given of the application to State of Uttar Pradesh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 44 of 2009, registered under Sections 316,323,420, 498- A, 506 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in case Crime No. 41/2009 at Mahila Thana, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh during the period of 15 days from today, petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amounts to the satisfaction of arresting officer concerned. It is, however, clarified that this order shall remain operative till the petitioners approach competent court of jurisdiction for bail in aforesaid FIR No. 44 of 2009 or for 15 days from today whichever is earlier, thereafter this order will be treated as automatically vacated and cancelled. The petition is disposed of Copy Dasti. (Kuldip Singh) Judge October 7, 2009 *brb* …5…