The court can grant anticipatory bail even when non-bailable warrants are issued, particularly when additional graver charges arise, emphasizing exceptional circumstances and process respect.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek pre-arrest/transit bail in complaint case No. 1038(C) of 2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A, 323, 504, and 328 read with Section 3 4 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 and 4 of the PROHIBITION OF DOWRY ACT , 1961. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated at the instance of her daughter-in-law Smt. Shivangini alias Sakshi. Akash Jha, elder son of the petitioner, got married to the complainant Smt. Shivangini alias Sakshi on 21.2.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. She filed a complaint against the petitioner, petitioner’s two sons and her husband. The complaint was registered as complaint case No. 1038(C) of 2021 in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on 24.11.2022. Her husband and her younger son were also granted pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna on 16.11.2021. The husband of the complainant was also granted pre-arrest bail by Patna High Court on 19.5.2023. Section 3 28 of IPC was added subsequently, which offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate committed the complaint to learned Sessions Judge and it was registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 992 of 2023. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the accused on the first date of hearing. An application for recalling of order was filed, which was wrongly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest. The petitioner is a Principal at Tagore Vanasthali Public School, Kasauli, Solan, H.P. She is residing separately from her son and the complainant in connection with her job. The petitioner will have to face humiliation in society in case of her arrest. She is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court but is apprehending her arrest due to the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest. Hence, the pre-arrest transit bail has been sought by the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

3. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1484 to submit that the Court has jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail even if the arrest is sought by the authorities located in a different State to enable the petitioner to approach the authority to seek the regular bail. He has also relied upon the following case law:

(i) Saravjeet Singh Vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 493 of 2020, decided on 17.3.2020;

(ii) Sennasi and another Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police , 1997 (2) CTC 665 ;

(iii) Nikita Jacob Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 441 of 2021 , decided on 17.2.2021;

(iv) Kewal Chamanlal Sharma Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application ST No. 3041 of 2020 , decided on 10.12.2020;

(v) Sasi Madathil Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No. 3942 of 2021 , decided on 3.11.2021;

(vi) Ameet Khandewal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi , 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2527: 2021 Cri LJ 2638;

(vii) Daler Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 2003 SCC Online Del 983: (2004) 72 DRJ 465;

(viii) Sushil Kumar Bhati & An