- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13289 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. SAINATH GHARSE SON OF MR. SAINATH TRIVIKRAM GHARSE, AGE 47, RESIDING AT KOTAK GUEST HOUSE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA. SR. ADV. FOR SRI. MURALIDHARA C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH D.N.NAGAR P.S, ANDHERI, MUMBAI 400 053. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY., HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT TRANSIT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO.811/2025 DATED 08.07.2025 REGISTERED AT D.N.NAGAR P.S ANDHERI, MUMBAI, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 406,420,34 OF IPC THEREBY PROTECTING THE PETITIONER FROM ARREST FOR A PERIOD SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE HIM TO APPROACH THE COMPETENT JURISCTIONAL COURT AT MUMBAI FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEFS. ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel, Sri. Sandesh. J. Chouta, appearing for Sri. Muralidhara. C, for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record. 2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to grant transit anticipatory bail for a limited period in a case registered in FIR No.811/2025 at D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, for the offence Punishable under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 3. FIR is registered against one Waghole's Investment Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. and two other named accused, on a complaint lodged by one Elizabeth Lou Ayler. 4. It is not disputed that petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in view of an observation made in the order passed by the High Court of Judicature in Bombay in WP.No.4336/2025 disposed on 13.08.2025. At paragraph No.4 of the said order it is observed that, prima-facie, the contents of the complaint, more particularly paragraph Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 clearly indicate a deceptive role played by Mr. Sainath Gharse (petitioner), Senior Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank. He made a call and convinced that depositing money with the accused, Radhey Waghole, involved no risk, as he is his colleague and there is nothing to worry about such investment. Several further serious allegations have been made - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 against Mr. Sainath Gharse. However, he has not even been added as an accused in the FIR. 5. At para 7, it is observed, that the learned Addl. PP appearing for the State submitted that while adding Section 409 of IPC, Mr. Sainath Gharse would also be added as an accused in the FIR and the said exercise would be completed, within three days. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order passed in Crl.Misc.No.7724/2025 dated 12.09.2025, has dismissed the prayer for transit anticipatory bail, observing that there is sufficient time to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court seeking bail and the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has added him as an accused and added Section 409 of IPC and therefore, there is no sufficient ground made out by the petitioner to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 7. Learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Curt in PRIYA INDORIA V/s. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749, stressing on paragraph No.101 to 103, which are extracted here under:- 101. Further, on a reading of Section 438 CrPC, we do not find that the expression "the High Court" or "the Court of Session is restricted vis-à-vis the local limits or any particular territorial jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that if an FIR is lodged in one State then the accused can approach the court in another State for seeking anticipatory bail. He can do so, if at the time of lodging of the FIR in any State, he is residing or as present there for a legitimate purpose in any other State. In fact, on a reading of Section 438 CrPC does not emerge that the expression "the High Court or the Court of Session must have reference only to the place or territorial jurisdiction within which the FIR is lodged. If that was the implication, the same would have been expressly evident in the Section itself or by a necessary implication. Further use of the word "the" before the words "High Court" and "Court of Sessions, also does not mean that only the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 within whose jurisdiction the FIR is filed, is competent to exercise jurisdiction for the grant of transit anticipatory bails. 102. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that the accused cannot seek full-fledged anticipatory bail in a State where he is a resident when the FIR has been registered in a different State. However, in view of what we have discussed above, he would be entitled to seek transit anticipatory bail from the court of Session or High Court in the State where he is a resident which necessarily has to be of a limited duration so as to seek regular anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. The need for such a provision is to secure the liberty of the individual concerned Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and since we have extended the concept of access to justice to such a situation and hearing in mind Article 14 thereof it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail. Otherwise, in a deserving case, there is likelihood of denial of personal liberty as well as access to justice for, by the time the person concerned approaches the court of competent jurisdiction to seek anticipatory bail, it may well be too late as he may be arrested. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 Needless to say, the court granting transit anticipatory bail would obviously examine the degree and seriousness of the apprehension expressed by the person who seeks transit anticipatory bail; while the object underlying exercise of such jurisdiction is to thwart arbitrary police action and to protect liberty besides providing immediate access to justice though within a limited conspectus. 103. If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is made solely with reference to the concept of territorial jurisdiction it would be adding a restriction to the exercise powers under Section 438. This, in our view would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice. We say so for the reason that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the accused apprehending arrest makes - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full- fledged anticipatory bail." 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another reported in 2022(1) SCC 676, has held that Personal liberty is an important aspect of constitutional mandate and the occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is heinous crime or there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or chances of accused absconding. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 9. In Priya Indoria's case (supra) it has been made clear that, accused cannot seek full-fledged anticipatory bail in a State, where he a resident when the FIR has been registered in a different state and the grant of transit anticipatory bail by the High Court in the State where he is a resident, necessarily has to be for a limited duration so as to seek regular anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the above principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner, a resident of Bengaluru, apprehending his arrest in a case registered by the D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, can be granted transit anticipatory bail for a limited period, to facilitate him to approach the jurisdictional Court to seek regular anticipatory bail. Hence, the following:- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37712 CRL.P No. 13289 of 2025 ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) Petitioner is granted transit anticipatory bail in FIR No.811/2025 of D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, for a period of 21 days. iii) In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the case registered in FIR No.811/2025, at D.N.Nagar, Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, he shall be released on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). iv) This order shall be valid for a limited period of 21 days. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28