Transit anticipatory bail allowed to facilitate the approaching of the competent court of jurisdiction: The High Court of Bombay at Goa

CRMAB 748 749 2021 F.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATIONNOS.748 AND 749 OF 2021 NO.748 OF 2021Ketan Kanakia Versus State of Goa Thr. Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATIONNO.749 OF 2021A N D Jignesh Prakashchandra Pandya … Applicant Versus State of Goa Thr. Public Prosecutor Mr. I. Agha and Ms. Valencia Fernandes Advocate for the Mr. S. G. Bhobe Public Prosecutor for the Respondent State CORAM: MANISH PITALE J 3rd November 2021 In these applications the Applicants have approached this Court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that both the Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime no 143 2021 registered at Koregaon Park Police Station Pune State of Maharashtra for offences under Section 384 385 420 read with Sections 34 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code1380 3rd November 2021 CRMAB 748 749 2021 F.DOC State would not have much to say in the matter. But it is submitted that even if the limited relief sought by the Applicant is to be granted appropriate conditions need to be imposed including a condition that would ensure that the Applicants do not misuse the limited relief that may be granted by this Court A perusal of the Judgments and Orders upon which the learned Counsel for the Applicants has placed reliance show that limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail. This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or the entitlement of the Applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. But at the same time since there is a possibility that the Applicants may be apprehended or arrested in connection with the said FIR if the Maharashtra Police take assistance of the local police in the State of Goa it cannot be said that the apprehension is misplaced or Hence in the facts and circumstances of the present case the applications are conditionally allowed in the following terms a) The applicants are granted protection from coercive action or arrest only for a period of three weeks from today provided i) The Applicants during this period shall not leave the State of Goa except to travel to the State of Maharashtra for moving such applications before the competent Court of jurisdiction 3rd November 2021 CRMAB 748 749 2021 F.DOC ii) The Applicant shall inform the concerned Police Station i.e. the Koregaon Park Police Station Maharashtra about the Order passed today by this Court iii) Needless to say the Applicants shall not act in any manner that would be prejudicial to the investigation that may be carried out by the concerned Police Officers in respect of the aforesaid FIR Applications are disposed of in the above terms MANISH PITALE J 3rd November 2021

Summary: Limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail after considering the possibility that the accused may be apprehended or arrested by some other competent jurisdiction, it cannot be concluded that the apprehension is misplaced or imaginary. The High Court of Bombay at Goa led by the single bench including Justice Mr Manish Pitale in the cases of Ketan Kanakia v. State of Goa[CRMAB/748/2021] and Jignesh Prakashchandra Pandya v. State of Goa[CRMAB/749/2021]. the Applicants approached this hon’ble court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that both the Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with crimes registered at Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune for offences under Section 384, 385, 420 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants contended that they are seeking limited relief of protection till they approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the crimes alleged against them. For the applicant, Mr Ketan Kanakia in CRMAB no. 748 of 2021, reliance is placed on a medical certificate issued by a Consultant Physician certifying that the Applicant is suffering from ailments and has been advised to rest till 24.11.2021. Mr Jignesh, the applicant in No. 749 submitted that he will require protection for a brief period in order to facilitate the approaching of the competent court for seeking anticipatory bail. Mr S. G. Bhobe, the Public Prosecutor pointed out that since the FIR is registered at Pune in Maharashtra, provided that the respondent state would not have much to say in the matter. Mr Bhobe submitted that even if the limited relief sought by the Applicant is to be granted, appropriate conditions need to be imposed, including a condition that would ensure that the Applicants do not misuse the limited relief that may be granted by this Court. The court after a perusal of the judgements N. K. Nayar &amp; Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors. , Shantanu Shivlal Muluk vs. The State of Maharashtra and Shrikant Gopilal Rathi &amp; Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors., show that limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail. The court directed “This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or the entitlement of the Applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. But, at the same time, since there is a possibility that the Applicants may be apprehended or arrested in connection with the said FIR if the Maharashtra Police take assistance of the local police in the State of Goa, it cannot be said that the apprehension is misplaced or imaginary.”