Transit bail may be granted when there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest (e.g., via a Section 91 CrPC notice) and exceptional circumstances exist, such as the distance to the jurisdictional court and a significant lapse of time since the FIR registration.

ORAL ORDER

1. Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.

2. Issue Rule, fixed forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent State. Learned Advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar waives service of rule for Respondent No. 1.

3. This application is filed by the applicant seeking grant of transit bail for six weeks in connection with the Case No. RC- 11(S)/2016-CBI-R registered at CBI, ACB, Ranchi for the offences punishable under Section 120-B , 415, 420 of IPC and Section 3 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

4. Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.

5. The Applicant namely Anita Wife of Arvindkumar Vakhtaria has placed on record the Additional AfÏdavit on behalf of the Petitioners that all the applicants are residing at 206, Bilipatra Complex, Nr. Shiv Vatika, Harni Warasiya Ring Road, Vadodara 390006. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for grant of transit bail.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with the above FIR and therefore, the applicant is desirous of moving the jurisdictional Court seeking anticipatory bail and hence, he urges that, in the interregnum, applicant may be protected and transit bail may be granted to the applicant.

7. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has relied on the judgment in the case of Priya Indoria vs The State Of Karnataka (2023 INSC 1008).

8. Learned Advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar for Respondent No. 1 and Learned APP for the Respondent-State submitted that the fear of the applicants is not a real apprehension of their arrest, particularly when the applicants have been given notice under Section 91 of the CrPC to produce documents in connection with the FIR mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the present application is misconceived and has urged to reject the same.

9. The case of the Applicants is that they are directors of M/s Haldhar Realty and Enterprises Limited and Haldhar Vikas Credit Co-operative Society, and that an FIR has been lodged against them in Gujarat in connection with offences punishable under Section 3 of the GPID as well as other offences under the IPC. Recently, the applicants were served with a notice issued by Respondent No. 1 pursuant to a case registered in the year 2016 under Section 91 of the CrPC.

10. The Applicants apprehend arrest pursuant to the case mentioned in the said notice. It would not be easy for them to approach the State of Jharkhand and avail the remedy of bail in anticipation of arrest; hence, they have prayed for transit bail before this Court. They have sought transit bail for at least six weeks to enable them to approach the State of Jharkhand and avail appropriate remedies. They submit that they have no direct connection so that they can prefer anticipatory bail at Jharkhand, and that if they approach for bail in anticipation of arrest, there is every likelihood that they would be arrested, thereby frustrating the very purpose of seeking anticipatory bail.

11. Thus, they have prayed for the grant of transit bail for six weeks in connection with Case No. RC-11(S)/2016-CBI-R registered at CBI, ACB, Ranchi for offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 415, and 420 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, as mentioned in the notice issued by Respondent No. 1.

12. Considering the ratio laid down in the case of Priya Indoriya (Supra), more p