The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's jurisdiction to grant transit anticipatory bail in a case where no FIR had been filed against the applicants in a state other than the one where the court had jurisdiction.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anmol Surollia for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants pray for being granted transit bail for a period of 30 days, more particularly to approach the competent Court within the Maharashtra State, since the applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with investigation, with regard to unfortunate death on account of suicide of one Mr. Jimit Shanghavi, husband of applicant No.1 herein and son-in-law of applicant No.2 herein.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Anmol Surollia for the applicants would submit that while undoubtedly, to the best of knowledge of the applicants, there is no FIR registered by the police authorities with regard to the death of Mr. Jimit Shanghavi, wherein the present applicants have been arraigned as accused, but at the same time, based upon the news papers reports, more particularly since such reports inter alia seem to state that the deceased had left behind a suicide note, probably implicating the applicants, therefore the applicants have a reasonable apprehension that they would be arrested in connection with investigation into the said suicide. Learned Advocate therefore would submit that the applicants may be protected for some reasonable period, during which period they can approach the concerned Court for preferring an appropriate application. Learned Advocate Mr. Anmol Surollia has in support of his submissions relied upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay in case of N.K. Nayar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1985 CrLJ 1887.

5. This application is opposed by learned APP Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that while an application praying for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest, even without an FIR is now permissible, but at the same time, an application for transit bail, may not be considered by this Court, more particularly in absence of there being an FIR, the applicants may not be able to contend that there is a reasonable apprehension of their arrest. Learned APP would also point out that while the present application had been preferred on 19.07.2022 and whereas this Court had heard the present application on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022 and had adjourned the matter to today, but even today, there is no information provided by the applicants that any FIR has been registered. Having regard to such submissions, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that apprehension of the applicants, of impending arrest, not being supported by any material, this Court may not entertain the present application and may not grant transit anticipatory bail to the present applicants.

6. Heard learned Advocate for the parties and perused the documents on record.

7. It appears that the applicant No.1 was married to one Mr. Jimit Shanghavi, who was a resident of Bombay and whereas the said Mr. Jimit Shanghavi had unfortunately committed suicide on 13.07.2022. It appears that there are news papers reports, which would show that the late Mr. Jimit Shanghavi had written a suicide note and whereas he had inter alia mentioned about domestic disputes resulting in depression and on account of which he was committing an act in question. The applicants, as noted hereinabove, are the wife and father-in-law, respectively. At this stage, it needs to be reiterated that the law, with regard to apprehending arrest an application for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail, is by now well settled that a person is entitled to approach Sessions Court or High Court or even Hon'ble Apex Court, as the case may be, praying for grant of appropriate protection from arrest inspite of there being no FIR registered against the such person. The question is that if a person could be protected by