JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey and Sri Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh, learned counsels for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Amita Garg, Vashudev Garg, Chaitanya Garg, Radhika, Sanjay Dixit, Mohd. Gulzar Joieya and Vishan Singh, with a prayer to release them on transit/anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 444 of 2022, Police Station-Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) dated 10.05.2022, under Sections- 504, 506, 384, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, during pendency of trial.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 at present is aged about 58 years, the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the sons and the applicant no. 4 is the daughter of applicant no. 1 and the applicant nos. 2 and 4 are the directors of several companies including the Rajdarbar Infotech Private Ltd. Head Office of Rajdarbar Infotech Pvt. Ltd., situated at Agra. The applicant nos. 5 and 7 are the employees of said company. The applicant no. 6 was earlier director of complainant’s company. All the applicants have good reputation and high moral value in the society having business of real estate and construction of the township as well as colonies all over country in different cities.

4. Huge amount has been paid to the opposite party no. 3, who is director of Vastu Colonisers Private Ltd., having its office at Jaipur through the M/S Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for providing the land of 380 bighas at Jaipur for the development of Township and the colonies. However, till date only 80 bighas of land has been provided and the money has not been returned to the applicant’s company through the Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

5. Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., has lodged a First Information Report against the opposite party no. 4 (Gyanchand Agrawal) and other persons at Agra which has been registered as First Information Report No. 0508 of 2021 on 11.12.2021 at Police Station – Hari Parvat, Agra, under Sections – 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as they have cheated the applicant’s company and not provided the land as agreed therefore, as a counter blast First Information Report No. 444 of 2022 has been lodged by the opposite party no. 3 against the applicants and several other persons only to create pressure upon them to appear the court at Jaipur.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the FIR has been lodged at the Police Station-Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan and the applicants are the residents of District – Agra in the State of U.P. They are willing to appear before the court concerned at Jaipur, Rajasthan for the purpose of getting bail. However, they may be granted transit anticipatory bail for short time so that they may appear before the competent court at Jaipur under limited protection granted by this court by way of time bound transit anticipatory bail.

7. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the counsels for the applicants and has submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any protection to the applicants. The offence has taken place outside the state. They may appear before the court concerned and apply for bail/anticipatory bail and the present application is not maintainable before this Court.

8. After hearing counsels for the parties, this court finds that there is no legislation or law which defines ‘transit or anticipatory bail’ in definitive or specific terms. The 41st Law Commission Report in 1969 recommended the provision of Anticipatory bail to safeguard the right to life and personal liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, on such recommendation, provision of Anticipatory Bail was inserted in Section 438. The term ‘transit’ means the act of being moved from one place to another while the word ‘anticipatory bail’ means a temporary release of any accused person who is anticipating arrest, therefore, transit antici