Bail is a familiar term in the field of criminal law, which refers to the discharge of a person from legal accusations under the condition that they will attend court hearings as required. The guidelines and regulations regarding bail are clearly stated in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, which encompasses provisions for requesting bail as per Section 437.
The concept of Anticipatory Bail was introduced to safeguard the liberty of individuals from arbitrary arrests. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure delineates the provisions for granting Anticipatory Bail by High Courts or Sessions Courts. In cases of non-bailable offences as well, the accused can seek Anticipatory Bail under Section 438(1) of the Code, which is determined by the court based on the facts presented.
In recent times, there has been a surge in the use of Transit Bail or Transit Anticipatory Bail. Shanthanu Muluk was granted Transit Anticipatory Bail for ten days by the High Court of Bombay instead of being taken into custody, while Advocate Nikita, who was also involved in the case, was granted Transit Anticipatory Bail.
The term “Transit” refers to the movement of an individual or an object from one place to another. In the legal domain, Transit Bail is a form of bail that is granted by a court, irrespective of the jurisdiction where the alleged crime took place. Transit Anticipatory Bail, however, is applicable when the accused is arrested by police in a different state from where they reside.
Although the Criminal Procedure Code or Indian law does not explicitly mention Transit Anticipatory Bail, this concept enables individuals to seek bail beforehand in anticipation of being arrested while in transit.
The idea of Transit Anticipatory Bail, although not explicitly laid out in the Criminal Procedure Code, can be traced back to its provisions and has been implemented in various legal cases. Since it is a type of Judge Made Law, there are no established guidelines specifying its application. However, individuals who are being arrested have the constitutional right, as per Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, to be informed of the grounds for their detention. When dealing with cases related to Transit Anticipatory Bail, courts refer to Article 22 as well as Sections 41-A to 41-D of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code.
The matter of seeking Transit Anticipatory Bail holds immense significance as it concerns the personal freedom of the individual involved. In case a person faces the threat of being arrested, they can approach the court to file for Transit Anticipatory Bail, even if the court is not located in the expected jurisdiction.
This provisional safeguard offers them time to reach the court where the case is initially registered to request Anticipatory Bail. The significance of Transit Anticipatory Bail lies in preventing the police from arresting someone from any place and depriving them of the chance to approach the appropriate jurisdiction.
To address matters pertaining to Transit Anticipatory Bail, Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be considered. Nevertheless, certain aspects require evaluation before granting such bail. These may include assessing the seriousness of the offense, confirming that the individual seeking Transit Bail is not deceiving the court or avoiding trial, and ensuring that the accused is not being targeted with any ulterior motives. Furthermore, terms and conditions for granting Transit Bail may require the applicant to be present whenever summoned by the court or an officer and to remain within the boundaries of India.
In a recent case titled “Shantanu Shivlal Muluk Vs. State of Maharashtra,” the High Court granted Mr. Muluk transit anticipatory bail for a period of ten days, while highlighting the importance of the accused approaching the right authority in good faith when seeking relief.
Moreover, the court clarified that filing an FIR is not mandatory for obtaining anticipatory bail. In another case titled “Ku. Sabinaz Vs. State of Maharashtra,” the Madhya Pradesh High Court established that anticipatory bail can only be granted for a limited period, allowing the applicant sufficient time to approach the court that has jurisdiction over the case.
Lastly, in the case of “Honey Preet Insan Vs. State and Others,” the Delhi High Court stated that transit bail cannot be granted to someone who is not a genuine resident in the jurisdiction of the court.
The concept of Transit Anticipatory Bail is not explicitly laid out in the law but is a creation of judicial interpretation, which may vary depending on the circumstances of each case. Hence, the outcome of each case involving Transit Anticipatory Bail may differ. To provide appropriate rulings, courts rely on a range of legal precedents.
