Transit Bail 'Short Lived' Safeguard, Effect Ceases When Competent Court's Jurisdiction Invoked: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the grant of transit bail is a short lived safeguard whose effect ceases when the jurisdiction of the competent court is invoked.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the relief is not intended to confer a continuing protection or to adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations against the accused.“Once the person avails of that opportunity and the jurisdiction of the competent court is invoked, the transit bail‟s effect ought to cease. Any extension of such protection beyond its limited purpose would not only defeat the very concept of transit bail but also encroach upon the powers of the court competent to decide the matter on merits,” the Court said. It added that it is a well settled that the object of granting transit bail is limited in scope, and that such relief is meant solely to protect the accused from immediate arrest for a short and definite period.The Court said that the relief is meant to enable the accused to approach the Court having jurisdiction to seek appropriate relief, whether anticipatory or regular bail. “The duration of such protection cannot be stretched indefinitely, as that would virtually amount to converting a transit bail into a regular or anticipatory bail, which lies beyond the jurisdiction of the court granting such temporary relief,” it said. Justice Sharma made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by an accused seeking to restrain the Delhi Police from taking any coercive action against him in a MCOCA case. The FIR was registered at Police Station Nangloi Outer, Delhi, regarding the theft of a white Kia Seltos. Investigations revealed a large-scale organized crime syndicate led by individuals based in Dubai involved in stealing and tampering with vehicles across India.The petitioner, a second-hand automobile dealer from Kolkata, was implicated in the case for selling stolen vehicles with forged documents to buyers. As per the FIR, investigations revealed significant transactions between the petitioner, co-accused and buyers.The petitioner was arrested on January 31, pursuant to non-bailable warrants but was granted transit interim bail to appear in Delhi.He did not surrender before the Sessions Court as directed, instead seeking repeated extensions of transit bail.It was the petitioner's case that he was a law-abiding citizen who sold vehicles after due diligence and suffers serious health issues.On the other hand, the prosecution highlighted the gravity of offences and accused the petitioner of abusing legal processes by evading surrender.Rejecting the plea, the Court said that instead of surrendering before the Sessions Court, the petitioner chose to once again approach the Magistrate and obtained repeated extensions of his transit interim bail.It noted that even after the High Court by way of a judicial officer had clarified that there was neither any stay of proceedings nor any protection operating in the petitioner‟s favour, he still failed to surrender before the Sessions Court. “Such conduct of the petitioner cannot be viewed as bona fide, and it reflects not only disregard for the law but also a calculated abuse of the judicial process, to evade his surrender in relation to the present case. Moreover, when no interim protection had been granted to the petitioner by this Court, no error was committed by the Sessions Court in repeatedly directing him to appear before the Court,” the Court said. “Accordingly, this Court finds no basis to conclude that no prima facie case exists against the petitioner or that his arrest would be unwarranted. Therefore, the petitioner‟s plea for protection against coercive action is without meri,” it added.Title: ARKA BHATTACHARYA v. STATECitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1461Click here to read order

Transit Bail 'Short Lived' Safeguard, Effect Ceases When Competent Court's Jurisdiction Invoked: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags