1

HIGH COURT OF M

EGHALAYA

AT SHILONG

AB. No. 3 of 2021

Date of Decision

: 23

.02.2021

Shri. Akash Gupta

Vs.

State of M

eghalaya.

Coram

:

Apearance:

For the Petitioner/Apelant(s)

:

M

r. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

:

M

r. N.D. Chullai, AAG. with

M

s. R. Colney, GA.

i)

W

hether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii)

W

hether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

1.

An FIR No

. 0050 registered under

Section 498

-A, 323,

504,

506

IPC

r/w S

ection 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act dated 08.02.2021 was lodged

against Shri Akash

Gupta, the Petitioner herein at the M

ughal

Sarai Police

Station,

District Chandoli in the State of Uttar Pradesh by Smti Sunaina

Tulsiyan

, the wife of the Petitioner. Of

course, in the said

FIR

besides

the

Petitioner, his father, mother, sister and anothe

r relative were also named.

2.

At present the Petitioner is residing at Tura in the W

est Garo Hills

District of M

eghalaya being a Class I registered Contractor and a Director of

CL Pvt

. Ltd engaged in road development projects in the State of M

eghalaya

an d is said to have been living in M

eghalaya for the last ten years.

3.

On coming to know of the said FIR lodged against him, the Petitioner

apprehending arest, has approached this Court with

this instant application

under S

ection 438 Cr.P

.C with a prayer for

grant of anticipatory bail in

connection with the said case as mentioned above.

Serial No. 01

Regular List

2

4.

Before this matter can be heard on merits, a preliminary issue as regard

jurisdiction was taken up for hearing.

5.

M

r. K.

Ch.

Gautam, learned c

ounsel for the Petitioner has

submitted

that admittedly the FIR against the Petitioner was lodged at M

ughal

Sarai P

.S

in the State of Uttar Pradesh, however the Petitioner is before this Court

seking transit anticipatory bail to

allow him to move an application for

anticipatory bail b

efore the Court of actual jurisdiction albeit even if it is only

for a specific period of time.

6.

To support his case, the learned c

ounsel has refered to the case of

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr

: (2014) 8 SCC

273

at paragraph

s 4,

5, 10 &

11 as well as the case of

Shantanu Shivla

l M

uluk v. State of

M

aharashtra

in 965 Anticipatory Bail Application No

. 154 of 2021

referable

to the Order dated 16.02.2021

at paragraph 10 of the same,

passed by the

d case.

7.

M

r. N.D.

Chullai, learned AAG along with M

s. R.

Colney,

learned

GA

for the State respondent

has not oppose the prayer of the Petitioner and has

instead assisted this Court by refering to the Order dated 31.10.2018 passed

by the then Chief Jus

tice of this Court sitting

in Single Bench in the case of

Smti M

erry B

ina M

arak v. State of M

eghalaya

in A.B. No 22 of 2018

,

wherein at paragraph 19 of the same, the Court has observed as follows:

. For the stated reasons and the law, I hold that power to be

exercised under Sections 438 and 482 CrPC rest with the High

Court or Court of Sessions within whose jurisdiction ocurrence

or part of ocurrence has taken place.

However, for grant of

transitory

pre

-arrest bail regarding non

-bailable offences in the

deserving cases, power of the High Court or Court of Sessions

within whose jurisdiction, person resides or place where he

apprehends arrest, is permissible as such not barred. Therefore,

acused can i

nvoke jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of

Sessions within whose jurisdiction he resides or place where he

apprehends arrest however, grant of pre

-

be a matter of routine. Host of circumstance, including

heinousness of the cr

8.

Upon hearing the parties herein

, what can be understood is that