The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary relief to protect liberty and to avoid immediate arrest can be granted by the court, even if the offence has occurred in another state, and that the real cause of making an application under Section 438 is the proposed arrest of the person.

JUDGMENT

PRAKASH D.NAIK, J. - This is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transit anticipatory bail for a period of four weeks to enable the applicant to approach appropriate Court for reliefs. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with CR No.49 of 2021 registered at Special Cell, New Delhi for offences under Sections 124A, 153, 153A, and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

2. The contention of the applicant is that she is a practicing lawyer at Bombay High Court since 2014. She has volunteered in environmental movement which helps to create awareness of various environmental crises and concerns worldwide and helps to create a positive change to the current system and structure in the world today with non-violence means. She was deeply concerned with the recent farm laws. Various environmental movements and activists including the applicant, have been researching and circulating information for raising awareness to encourage peaceful participation and express solidarity with the protesting farmers who have been protesting since long and have been discussing various ways to support the farmers in the short and long term.

3. Mr.Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, appearing for applicant submitted that on 11th February 2021 the Special Cell Unit of Delhi Police accompanied by Constable from local Police Station, visited house of applicant with search warrant and seized personal documents and electric gadgets from the house of applicant. It is submitted that during the search conducted by Special Cell Unit of Delhi Police, search-cum-seizure memo was prepared and the statement of applicant was recorded. It is difficult for her to move to other State without protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to seek appropriate relief as she has fear of getting arrested in transit on the basis of aforesaid complaint. The applicant is a lawyer who supports environmental causes. The alleged toolkit does not talk about any violence. She has co-operated with investigation. She needs time to move appropriate Court and hence protection be granted u/s 438 of Cr.P.C for a period of four weeks. Toolkit came to light after the incident of 26th January 2021 protest. Applicant is not named in FIR. The apprehension of applicant is fortified by the fact that non-bailable warrant has been issued against applicant by the Court at Delhi. Hence, protection as prayed above may be granted for a temporary period.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 Mr.Venegavkar submitted that the application is not maintainable in law. There is no provision to grant such relief u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. The officers of respondent no.2 had visited residence of applicant and by following due process of law search was conducted and her statement was recorded. However, on the next day when the officers visited applicant's residence, she was not available. Hence, warrant of arrest has been issued against applicant. Copy of FIR is produced by him. It is submitted that Section 7 of Cr.P.C constitute territorial divisions. The said provision stipulates that every State shall be sessions division or shall consist of sessions divisions, and every sessions division shall, for the purpose of Code, be a district or consist of districts. The State may after consultation with High Court, alter the limits or the number of such divisions and district and State Government may after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub divisions. The powers under Section 438 are exercised by High Court or Sessions Court. In the light of Section 7 of Code, since the offence has occurred in another State, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this application. He adverted to Article 214 of Constitution of India which stated that there shall be a High Court for each State to contend that Courts have jurisdiction over specific terri