The court may grant transit anticipatory bail even if the FIR is outside its territorial jurisdiction, safeguarding personal liberty and access to justice.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned senior counsel, Sri. Sandesh. J. Chouta, appearing for Sri. Muralidhara. C, for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to grant transit anticipatory bail for a limited period in a case registered in FIR No.811/2025 at D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, for the offence Punishable under Section 406 , 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. FIR is registered against one Waghole's Investment Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. and two other named accused, on a complaint lodged by one Elizabeth Lou Ayler.

4. It is not disputed that petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in view of an observation made in the order passed by the High Court of Judicature in Bombay in WP.No.4336/2025 disposed on 13.08.2025. At paragraph No.4 of the said order it is observed that, prima-facie, the contents of the complaint, more particularly paragraph Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 clearly indicate a deceptive role played by Mr. Sainath Gharse (petitioner), Senior Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank. He made a call and convinced that depositing money with the accused, Radhey Waghole, involved no risk, as he is his colleague and there is nothing to worry about such investment. Several further serious allegations have been made against Mr. Sainath Gharse. However, he has not even been added as an accused in the FIR.

5. At para 7, it is observed, that the learned Addl. PP appearing for the State submitted that while adding Section 409 of IPC, Mr. Sainath Gharse would also be added as an accused in the FIR and the said exercise would be completed, within three days.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order passed in Crl.Misc.No.7724/2025 dated 12.09.2025, has dismissed the prayer for transit anticipatory bail, observing that there is sufficient time to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court seeking bail and the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has added him as an accused and added Section 409 of IPC and therefore, there is no sufficient ground made out by the petitioner to allow the petition.

7. Learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Curt in Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Others , (2024) 4 SCC 749, stressing on paragraph No.101 to 103, which are extracted here under:-

101. Further, on a reading of Section 438 CrPC, we do not find that the expression "the High Court" or "the Court of Session is restricted vis-à-vis the local limits or any particular territorial jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that if an FIR is lodged in one State then the accused can approach the court in another State for seeking anticipatory bail. He can do so, if at the time of lodging of the FIR in any State, he is residing or as present there for a legitimate purpose in any other State. In fact, on a reading of Section 438 CrPC does not emerge that the expression "the High Court or the Court of Session must have reference only to the place or territorial jurisdiction within which the FIR is lodged. If that was the implication, the same would have been expressly evident in the Section itself or by a necessary implication. Further use of the word "the" before the words "High Court" and "Court of Sessions, also does not mean that only the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be. within whose jurisdiction the FIR is filed, is competent to exercise jurisdiction for the grant of transit anticipatory bails.

102. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that the accused cannot seek ful