The Kerala High Court has clarified that while courts cannot grant anticipatory bail in offences registered outside their territorial jurisdiction, they retain the power to issue transit bail to protect personal liberty during inter-state arrest threats. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and sets a critical precedent for accused persons facing cross-border criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vincy Peter, a resident of Ernakulam, Kerala, is named as an accused in Crime No.18/2025 registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The alleged offences include Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to cyber harassment and violation of privacy through digital communication.
Procedural History
The petitioner received a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, directing her to appear before the investigating officer in Etah. She has no prior criminal record and suffers from documented medical conditions. Unable to travel to Uttar Pradesh due to health constraints and fearing arbitrary arrest, she filed this bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS before the Kerala High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transit bail to prevent immediate arrest while she approaches the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh to seek anticipatory bail. She requested a three-week window to file her application before the appropriate forum without fear of detention.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a High Court outside the territorial jurisdiction of the FIR can grant transit bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 to protect an accused from imminent inter-state arrest, even when it lacks authority to grant anticipatory bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka to argue that transit bail is a distinct remedy from anticipatory bail, designed to preserve personal liberty during transit to the jurisdictional court. They emphasized the petitioner’s medical vulnerability and the absence of any allegation of flight risk or tampering with evidence. The notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was presented as evidence of imminent coercive action.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the grant of transit bail but contended that the petitioner must exhaust remedies in the jurisdictional court. The Public Prosecutor acknowledged the petitioner’s health condition and did not dispute the reasonableness of her apprehension, but stressed that the Kerala High Court’s role is limited to facilitating access to justice, not adjudicating merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the distinction between anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 438 BNSS) and the inherent powers under Section 482 BNSS. It held that while Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail, it empowers courts to issue transit bail as a procedural safeguard under Article 21.
"This Court is empowered to pass an order of transit bail to prevent minimum threat to her life and personal liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered."
The Court noted that the petitioner had demonstrated a credible fear of arrest, had no history of evasion, and had already taken steps to comply with the notice. The medical records and the nature of the allegations did not suggest a risk of evidence destruction. The Court emphasized that transit bail is not a substitute for anticipatory bail, but a temporary measure to ensure access to justice.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted transit bail, directing that the respondent shall not arrest her for three weeks, during which she may approach the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh to seek anticipatory bail. The order affirms the availability of transit bail as a constitutional safeguard under Section 482 BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transit Bail Is a Constitutional Safeguard
- Practitioners must now treat transit bail as a distinct, actionable remedy under Section 482 BNSS, not merely a procedural formality
- Courts must recognize that fear of arrest across state lines, especially in cyber offences, triggers Article 21 protections
- Medical vulnerability and lack of flight risk are material factors in granting transit bail
Jurisdictional Limits Do Not Bar Procedural Relief
- A High Court cannot adjudicate the merits of an offence registered elsewhere, but it can act to prevent unlawful detention during transit
- Petitioners must file affidavits showing: (a) FIR registration outside jurisdiction, (b) notice under BNSS Section 35(3), and (c) credible threat of arrest
- The three-week window set here establishes a practical precedent for future applications
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Applicants must attach documentary proof: FIR copy, notice under BNSS Section 35(3), medical records, and communication evidence
- Failure to demonstrate inability to approach the jurisdictional court immediately will defeat the claim
- Transit bail is not a right but a discretionary remedy - courts will assess reasonableness on a case-by-case basis
