Whether approved for reporting?

Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

1. Since all the above captioned bail petitions arise from one FIR i.e. FIR No.0141 of 2026 w.e.f. 2r.3.2026 under Sections 85 , 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with PS Chakeri East (Commissionerate Kanpour Nagar), Uttar Pradesh, same were heard together and are being dispCosed of vide common order.

2. By way of these bail petitions, prayer has been made by the bail petithioners for transit bail in the aforesaid FIR. It is stated by the bail petgitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the afore FIR, which is lodged at the behest of wife of petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. Though complainant, at whose behest, FIR came to be lodged had left her matrimonial house one year back, but now after delay of one year, she has lodged a false complaint with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner(s). Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) fairly states that while present bail petitions are not maintainable before this Court on account of registration of FIR in the State of Uttar Pradesh, but this Court in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2024) 4 SCC 749, can proceed to grant transit bail, enabling the petitioners to approach competent court of law in the State of Uttar Pradesh. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General though stated that present bail petitions are not maintainable, but fairly admits that in terms of law cited hereirn above, this Court can always proceed to grant transit bail subject to condition that they shall approach the competent court of lawo in the jurisdiction, where FIR is registered, within a specified time.

3. Having carefully perused FIR placed on record, this Court finds that samhe has been lodged by Kamini, wife of one of the bail petitioner namely Sanjeev Kumar. She alleged that while her husband was out of station her in-laws i.e. bail petitioners except in Cr.MP(M) No. 300 of 2026, not only demanded dowry, but extended threats. Though incident reported in the FIR allegedly happened in Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but since FIR has been lodged in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as such, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, however, having taken note of apprehension of the petitioners qua their arrest, this Court can always proceeded to grant transit bail, enabling the petit.ioners to approach the competent court of law in State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya Indoria (supra), has held that extra-territorial, transit or interim anticipatory bail for an offence committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court or Court of Session is permissible in exceptional and compelling circumstances, where denying transit anticipatory bail o r interim protection to enable the applicant to make an applicationr under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicaont, court while considering such an application for extra-territorial anCticipatory bail may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of compehtent jurisdiction. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:

“93.In view of what we have discussed above, we are of the view that considering the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen’s right to life, personal liberty and dignity, the High Cou