The High Court of Kerala has clarified that courts may grant transit bail when an accused faces imminent inter-state arrest and cannot access anticipatory bail in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered. This ruling reinforces the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 when procedural barriers prevent access to statutory remedies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nangani Princen Devessey, managing partner of M/S. Rose Diamonds, is facing a criminal complaint filed by Sri. Gajera Kalpesh Maganbhai, proprietor of J.K. Star Jewels, registered as C.A. Application No. 905/2025 in Surat, Gujarat. The complaint alleges financial misconduct related to diamond transactions. The Economic Crimes Prevention Branch in Surat issued a notice under Annexure A2 directing the petitioner to appear for a preliminary enquiry.
Procedural History
- The petitioner received multiple notices from authorities in Gujarat, including one dated 11.12.2025 and another on 07.01.2026.
- The notices were issued in Gujarati, Hindi, and English, with translations provided via Google Translate.
- The petitioner, a resident of Thrissur, Kerala, has no territorial connection to Gujarat and cannot file an anticipatory bail application before the Surat court.
- Fearing arrest during travel or upon arrival in Gujarat, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court seeking protection.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transit bail to prevent arbitrary arrest while enabling him to approach the jurisdictional court in Surat within a reasonable timeframe to seek regular anticipatory bail.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a High Court can grant transit bail to an accused facing inter-state arrest when the court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka to argue that while a High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail for offences registered outside its jurisdiction, it retains the power to issue transit bail to safeguard personal liberty under Article 21. They emphasized that the petitioner had no means to approach the Surat court without risking arrest, and that the notices were issued without proper legal foundation or translation accuracy.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor did not oppose the grant of transit bail but sought to clarify that the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional court within a stipulated time. The State acknowledged the petitioner’s legitimate apprehension and did not contest the need for temporary protection pending access to the correct forum.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional imperative of personal liberty and the procedural limitations imposed by territorial jurisdiction. It noted that Section 438 BNSS restricts anticipatory bail applications to courts within the jurisdiction where the offence is alleged to have occurred. However, the Court held that this restriction does not negate the broader duty of courts to protect life and liberty under Article 21.
"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 found the petitioner’s fear of arrest to be reasonable, given the inter-state nature of the proceedings and the absence of any immediate procedural mechanism for him to seek relief in Surat. It emphasized that transit bail is not a substitute for anticipatory bail but a temporary safeguard to ensure access to justice. The Court also noted the petitioner’s cooperation, lack of criminal antecedents, and the non-violent nature of the allegations.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted transit bail, directing that the respondent shall not arrest the petitioner for three weeks from the date of judgment. The petitioner is permitted to approach the jurisdictional court in Surat to seek anticipatory bail within that period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transit Bail Is a Constitutional Safeguard
- Practitioners may now invoke transit bail as a remedy when clients face inter-state arrest threats and cannot file anticipatory bail in the FIR jurisdiction.
- Courts must treat transit bail as a procedural bridge to uphold Article 21, not as an exception.
Jurisdictional Barriers Cannot Deny Access to Justice
- A petitioner’s inability to physically reach the jurisdictional court due to fear of arrest constitutes a valid ground for transit bail.
- Notices issued across state lines without proper legal service or translation do not create enforceable obligations that override personal liberty.
Time-Bound Access to Jurisdictional Courts Is Mandatory
- Transit bail must be granted with a clear deadline - typically 2 - 4 weeks - to ensure the accused does not indefinitely evade the jurisdictional process.
- Failure to approach the correct court within the stipulated time renders the transit bail order void and may lead to arrest.
