The Kerala High Court has affirmed the power of courts to grant transit bail when an accused faces imminent inter-state arrest and cannot promptly approach the jurisdictional court. This ruling reinforces the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21, particularly in cases where procedural barriers prevent timely access to anticipatory bail.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Darun Das Paramberi, a resident of Malappuram District, Kerala, is named as an accused in Crime No. 55/2025 registered at Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka. The alleged offence falls under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which pertains to causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The petitioner has no residential, professional, or transactional connection with Karnataka and resides permanently in Kerala.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 28.04.2025 by Sirsi Rural Police Station, Karnataka.
- On 05.04.2026, the petitioner received a police notice (No. 844/2026) from the same station, intimating him of impending arrest.
- The notice was issued over eleven months after the FIR, without any prior summons or inquiry directed to the petitioner in Kerala.
- The petitioner has no presence, property, or activity in Karnataka.
- The petitioner fears arrest upon arrival in Karnataka, with potential risk to life and liberty due to the nature of the allegation and lack of procedural safeguards.
Procedural History
- 28.04.2025: FIR registered at Sirsi Rural Police Station, Karnataka.
- 05.04.2026: Police notice issued to petitioner in Kerala, intimating arrest.
- 06.04.2026: Bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Kerala High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The petitioner is a resident of Kerala with no nexus to Karnataka.
- He cannot approach the jurisdictional court in Karnataka without risking arrest upon travel.
- The delay in issuing the notice (nearly 11 months) indicates lack of urgency or due diligence.
- Granting transit bail is the only feasible remedy to preserve his liberty while he seeks anticipatory bail in the proper forum.
- Reliance was placed on Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023 KHC OnLine 6997), which recognized the court’s power to grant transit bail.
For the Respondent/State
The Senior Public Prosecutor did not oppose the grant of transit bail but sought to ensure the petitioner would approach the jurisdictional court within a stipulated time. No substantive counter-argument was advanced against the petitioner’s claim of geographical impossibility.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transit bail to prevent arrest until he could approach the competent court in Karnataka to apply for anticipatory bail, and requested that the Karnataka police be restrained from arresting him during this interim period.
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the crime, grant transit bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to protect an accused from inter-state arrest when access to the jurisdictional court is practically impossible?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka to establish that while a court cannot grant anticipatory bail for offences registered outside its jurisdiction, it retains the authority to issue transit bail to prevent arbitrary arrest during transit. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner’s inability to approach the Karnataka court without risking detention constituted a violation of Article 21. The delay in issuing the notice further undermined the legitimacy of immediate arrest. The application was framed under Section 482 BNSS as a safeguard against abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not contest the grant of transit bail. The Senior Public Prosecutor acknowledged the petitioner’s geographical remoteness from the jurisdiction of the FIR and accepted that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to appear before the Karnataka court without prior protection. The State expressed no objection to a time-bound interim order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the principle laid down in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, which held that while a court cannot entertain an application for anticipatory bail for offences registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, it may grant transit bail to prevent unlawful detention during transit. The Court observed that the petitioner’s situation presented a classic case where the right to personal liberty was at imminent risk due to procedural asymmetry.
"Though this Court is not in a position to grant pre-arrest bail in cases where crimes have been registered outside the territorial jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to pass an order of transit bail."
The Court noted that the petitioner had no connection with Karnataka, had not been summoned or questioned prior to the notice, and faced the prospect of arrest upon arrival in a foreign jurisdiction. The Court held that such a scenario, where the accused is effectively trapped between the threat of arrest and the impossibility of seeking relief, falls squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 and the inherent powers under Section 482 BNSS.
The Court further emphasized that transit bail is not a substitute for anticipatory bail, but a temporary, protective measure to ensure access to justice. The petitioner’s inability to approach the jurisdictional court without risking arrest rendered the normal legal process inaccessible. The Court concluded that denying transit bail in such circumstances would amount to a denial of the right to life and liberty.
The Verdict
The bail application was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court in Karnataka and seek anticipatory bail within three weeks from the date of this order. The respondent No. 2, the Station House Officer of Sirsi Rural Police Station, is directed not to arrest the petitioner until the expiry of the said three-week period. The petitioner is granted transit bail for this duration to ensure his right to approach the competent court without fear of detention.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transit Bail Is a Constitutional Safeguard
- Practitioners may now invoke transit bail under Section 482 BNSS when an accused faces inter-state arrest without prior notice or opportunity to approach the jurisdictional court.
- The burden shifts to the State to justify why an accused should be arrested before seeking anticipatory bail, especially when no prior summons was issued.
Jurisdictional Impossibility Triggers Judicial Intervention
- Courts will recognize geographical and procedural barriers as valid grounds for transit bail.
- Delay in issuing arrest notices, absence of prior inquiry, and lack of nexus with the jurisdiction are critical factors supporting such relief.
Procedural Fairness Over Technicality
- The ruling prioritizes substantive justice over rigid territorial boundaries.
- Lawyers should routinely seek transit bail in inter-state cases where the accused is a non-resident and has not been given prior opportunity to respond.
