2026:HHC:5844 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM Nos. 300, 301, 302, 303, and 304 of 2026 Date of Decision: 5.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 300 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 301 of 2026 Girish Paul ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 302 of 2026 Rahul Peter ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 303 of 2026 Rajni ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 304 of 2026 Kirati Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh 2 …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since all the above captioned bail petitions arise from one FIR i.e. FIR No.0141 of 2026 w.e.f. 2.3.2026 under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with PS Chakeri East (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar), Uttar Pradesh, same were heard together and are being disposed of vide common order. 2. By way of these bail petitions, prayer has been made by the bail petitioners for transit bail in the aforesaid FIR. It is stated by the bail petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the afore FIR, which is lodged at the behest of wife of petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. Though complainant, at whose behest, FIR came to be lodged had left her matrimonial house one year back, but now after delay of one year, she has lodged a false complaint with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner(s). Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) fairly states that while present bail petitions are not maintainable before this Court on account of 3 registration of FIR in the State of Uttar Pradesh, but this Court in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2024) 4 SCC 749, can proceed to grant transit bail, enabling the petitioners to approach competent court of law in the State of Uttar Pradesh. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent- State, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General though stated that present bail petitions are not maintainable, but fairly admits that in terms of law cited herein above, this Court can always proceed to grant transit bail subject to condition that they shall approach the competent court of law in the jurisdiction, where FIR is registered, within a specified time. 3. Having carefully perused FIR placed on record, this Court finds that same has been lodged by Kamini, wife of one of the bail petitioner namely Sanjeev Kumar. She alleged that while her husband was out of station her in-laws i.e. bail petitioners except in Cr.MP(M) No. 300 of 2026, not only demanded dowry, but extended threats. Though incident reported in the FIR allegedly happened in Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but since FIR has been lodged in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as such, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, however, having taken note of apprehension of the petitioners qua their arrest, this Court 4 can always proceeded to grant transit bail, enabling the petitioners to approach the competent court of law in State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya Indoria (supra), has held that extra-territorial, transit or interim anticipatory bail for an offence committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court or Court of Session is permissible in exceptional and compelling circumstances, where denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant, court while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under: “93.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: 93.1 Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR 5 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. 93.2 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. 93.3 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. 93.4 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. 94. It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in which an order of extra territorial anticipatory bail may be imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant. We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only which means where, denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to 6 the applicant. The Court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction.” 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the afore bail petitions and accordingly, same are allowed with a direction that in the event of their arrest in the afore FIR, bail petitioners herein shall file anticipatory bail in the competent court of law in State of Uttar Pradesh within a period of two weeks and till then, they shall not be arrested by respondent No.2. Needless to say, in case needful as has been permitted to be done is not done within a specified time, respondent No.2 would be at liberty to do the needful in accordance with law. March 5, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge