AB/13/2024 of THOTA MANGATAYARU Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 6 November 2024

1. The State of Meghalaya,Represented through SecretaryAnd Commissioner,Home Police Department,Government of Meghalaya,Meghalaya.

2. The State of MaharashtraRepresented through SecretaryAnd Commissioner,Home Police Department,Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Colaba,Mumbai, Maharashtra,Pincode – 400001.

3. The Superintendent of Police,Mumbai District,Mumbai District, DN Road, Crawford Market,Mumbai, Maharashtra,Pincode – 400001.Mumbai, Maharashtra,Pincode – 400001.

4. The Investigation Officer,Kanjurmarg Police Station,Kanjurmarg Police Station, Mumbai, District, Mumbai City,Pincode – 400042.

…… Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)

: Mr. S. Thapa, Adv.Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

: Mr. N. Syngkon, GA.Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA. for R 1.

i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.: Law journals etc.:

Yes/No

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that an FIR has been lodged before Kanjurmarg Police Station, Brihan Mumbai City in the State of Maharashtra. According tothe learned counsel, the FIR was lodged in connection with an allegedcase of child trafficking, wherein the NGO namely, Green Force Trust issaid to be involved. The petitioner who is working as a Ministerial staffin the said NGO being apprehensive of arrest, and also being a presentresident of the State of Meghalaya residing with her daughter atShillong, has accordingly approached this Court with this instantapplication for grant of transit bail to allow her to approach thejurisdictional court for regular bail.

2. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned GA appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent No. 1 has not made any strong opposition to the prayer madeon the ground that the State of Meghalaya is not at all involved in thecase and is not in the know of the facts and circumstances of the matter,except from what the petitioner has indicated hereinabove. Accordingly,the learned GA submits that the prayer made will not be objected exceptfor the fact that this Court may be pleased to specify specific time periodfor the transit bail.

3. This Court on consideration of the submission made by thelearned counsel for the respective parties is made aware that theprincipal respondents, that is, respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 being the partiesconcerned, who are aware of the facts and circumstances and theprogress of investigation in the matter have not made their appearancebefore this Court inspite of notice being duly affected upon therespondent Nos. 3 & 4. However, as a general proposition of law,whenever an application for grant of anticipatory bail is being taken up,the Court would firstly look into the nature and gravity of the complaintmade and also as to whether there is any apprehension of arrest by thepetitioner/accused.

4. No doubt, as indicated by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, the case is serious in nature, however, the role of thepetitioner could not yet be ascertained. Be that as it may, the fact thatthis Court is empowered to grant transit bail, more so as has beenelaborately discussed, observed and held by the Apex Court in the caseof Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka & Ors reported in (2024) 4 SCC

749, wherein at para 93, 93.1 and 93.2, the following has been observed as under:

“93.In view of what we have discussed above, we are ofthe view that considering the constitutional imperative ofprotecting a citizen’s right to life, personal liberty anddignity, the High Court or the Court of Session could grantlimited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protectionunder Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of justice withrespect to an FIR registered outside the territorialjurisdiction of the said court, and subject to the followingconditions:

93.1. Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail,the investigating officer and Public Prosecutor who areseized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date ofthe hearing, though the court in an appropriate case wouldhave the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.

93.2. The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail mustrecord reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-State arrest and the impact of such grant of limitedanticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be,on the status of the investigation.”

5. Accordingly, on an overall consideration of the case of the parties, the prayer made is accordingly allowed.

6. The petitioner is granted interim bail for a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of this order to allow her to appear before the competent court of jurisdiction in the State of Maharashtra.

7. This application is accordingly disposed of as indicatedhereinabove.

8. Let copy of this order be issued upon the respondent Nos. 3

& 4 respectively for information.

Judge