High Court grants anticipatory transit bail, clarifies jurisdiction to grant bail beyond territorial limits.

The High Court granted anticipatory transit bail to the applicants in relation to FIR No. 435/2021, PS Model Town Panipat, Haryana. The Court dismissed the application initially due to lack of territorial jurisdiction but later clarified that there is no restriction on the High Court or Court of Sessions in granting transit anticipatory bail. The Court set aside the observations made by ASJ-02, West, emphasizing its jurisdiction to grant bail and directed that the applicants not be arrested until 06.12.2021, with specific conditions for cooperation with the investigation.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory transit bail in relation to FIR, Jurisdiction of the court to hear the application, Observations made in the impugned order, Set aside of observations made by the ASJ-02, West, Merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners, Conditions for not arresting the applicants.

Grant of Anticipatory Transit Bail:
The applicant sought anticipatory transit bail in relation to FIR No.435/2021, PS Model Town Panipat, Haryana under Sections 66(C)/66(D) of the IT Act, 2000 and Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners contended that the FIR initially related to bailable offenses under the IT Act, 2000 and non-bailable offenses under the IPC, 1860. The State of NCT of Delhi submitted that two days of transit anticipatory bail would meet the ends of justice.

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court dismissed the application on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the matter pertained to PS Model Town, Panipat, Haryana. However, the High Court cited various precedents to establish that there is no restriction on the jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Sessions in granting transit anticipatory bail, even if the FIR is registered in another jurisdiction.

Observations in the Impugned Order:
The observations made by the ASJ-02, West in the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 were set aside by the High Court. The High Court highlighted that the observations were not in line with the law laid down in various judgments, emphasizing the court's jurisdiction to grant transit anticipatory bail.

Set Aside of ASJ-02, West's Observations:
The High Court set aside the observations made by the ASJ-02, West in the impugned order. The Court did not delve into the merits or demerits of the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding bail but considered it appropriate to prevent the arrest of the applicants until 06.12.2021, allowing them to move the requisite applications before the concerned Court.

Merits of the Contentions Raised:
The High Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners concerning bail. The Court noted that the FIR stemmed from a matrimonial discord, indicating ongoing mediation proceedings and interim protection granted to the complainant and family members in a related case.

Conditions for Not Arresting the Applicants:
The Court directed that the applicants should not be arrested until 06.12.2021. The applicants were required to join the investigation, keep their mobile phones on at all times, and drop their PIN on the google map to ensure their locations are available to the Investigating Officer. The application was disposed of accordingly, with a copy of the order sent to the learned ASJ-02, West, Delhi.

---