Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24997 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 463 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhagwati Sharana Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Srivastava,Abhishek Pratap Singh,Anil Kumar Verma,Lavkush Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State. 2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties no. 2 & 3 stands dispensed with. 2. First Interim (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 493 of 2018 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 341 323, 504 & 34 of IPC, P.S. Mohania, District Kaimur (State of Bihar). 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him in the FIR which has been registered in Police Station Mohania District Kaimur (State of Bihar) and apprehends arrest in terms thereof. He has placed reliance on judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria versus State of Karnataka and others, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11423-11426 of 2023 as well as judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5286 of 2022, Amita Garg and others versus State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that since there is apprehension of arrest in view of warrants having been issued by the Court concerned in Bihar for apprehension of arrest is very much present and therefore seeks transitory anticipatory bail. He has drawn attention to paragraph-20 of the affidavit filed in support of application to submit that wife of applicant is a house lady and would not be able to pursue the matter on behalf of applicant who would be arrested by the Bihar Police in case he is required to attend to the proceedings. 5. Learned AGA has opposed bail application with the submission that transit anticipatory bail can be granted only in case of any apprehension of arrest and upon satisfaction of conditions indicated in paragraph-36 of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria (supra), which are not fulfilled in the present case. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that learned counsel for both the sides have placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria (supra) in which conditions for grant of interim (transit) anticipatory bail have been indicated in paragraph-36 thereof whereunder it has been enunciated that applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Relevant portion is as follows:- 36. 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 Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, and subject to the following conditions: (i) Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail. (ii) The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation. (iii) The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Section 438 of CrPC. (iv) The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be - a. a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered; b. the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness; C. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extra-territorial limited anticipatory bail. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that applicant in paragraph-20 has clearly indicated that his wife is residing in Bihar but have also been included as an accused. However, no reason has been indicated as to why the said lady cannot pursue an anticipatory bail at the instance of applicant from the Court which has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The only reason indicated by applicant is of life threat. Learned counsel has also not been able to indicate any provision whereunder the applicant is required to surrender before the Court concerned for seeking anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, this Court finds that conditions indicated in paragraph-36 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria (supra) are not fulfilled. The anticipatory bail, therefore, stands rejected. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench