Manjusha Vivek vs Union of India - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29702

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Manjusha Vivek – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 2649 OF 2026

Important Points

A High Court, while lacking jurisdiction to grant substantive anticipatory bail for an offence registered outside its territorial limits, is empowered to grant transit bail to protect the personal liberty of an accused to enable them to approach the appropriate jurisdictional court.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail and Personal Liberty

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.316(2), S.318(4)

Headnote

The application was filed under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transit bail for the accused in a case registered in another jurisdiction under S.316(2) and S.318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner apprehended arrest at the hands of local police authorities. The Court determined that while it lacks jurisdiction to grant substantive anticipatory bail for crimes committed outside its territorial limits, it possesses the authority to grant transit bail in appropriate circumstances. The core issue was whether the applicant met the requirements for transit bail to protect against immediate apprehension pending the filing of an anticipatory bail application in the appropriate territorial court. Relying on judicial precedent, the court held that transit bail is a permissible remedy for safeguarding personal liberty when the accused demonstrates an inability to seek immediate relief from the jurisdictional magistrate. The ratio decidendi emphasizes the necessity of protecting the applicant's liberty on an interim basis while directing them to subject themselves to the proper jurisdictional forum within a specified timeframe. The application is disposed of with liberty granted to the applicant to move the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief within three weeks, during which time the local authorities are restrained from executing an arrest.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.B.Mohanakumar
For the Respondents: Sreeja V.

Table of Content
1. initiation of transit bail application due to out-of-state prosecution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. granting limited transit protection while directing applicant to competent jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The applicant is the accused in C.S. No.340703/2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI Calcutta, West Bengal. The offences alleged against the applicant are punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. The applicant apprehends arrest by respondent no.4 in the above crime.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The Supreme Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023 KHC OnLine 6997) held that though this Court is not in a position to grant pre-arrest bail in cases where crimes have been registered outside the territorial jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to pass an order of transit bail.

6. The apprehension of the applicant of an inter-state arrest appears to be well-founded. The grounds raised by the applicant for an order of transit bail appears to be reasonable to avoid minimum threat to his life and personal liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered.

7. The applicant has satisfied this Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the court which has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence immediately.

This bail application is therefore disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach the jurisdictional Court and seek proper remedies in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today. The respondent No.4 shall not arrest the applicant till the expiry of the said three weeks.