Limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail after considering the possibility that the accused may be apprehended or arrested by some other competent jurisdiction, it cannot be concluded that the apprehension is misplaced or imaginary. The High Court of Bombay at Goa led by the single bench including Justice Mr Manish Pitale in the cases of Ketan Kanakia v. State of Goa[CRMAB/748/2021] and Jignesh Prakashchandra Pandya v. State of Goa[CRMAB/749/2021].
the Applicants approached this hon’ble court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that both the Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with crimes registered at Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune for offences under Section 384, 385, 420 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants contended that they are seeking limited relief of protection till they approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the crimes alleged against them. For the applicant, Mr Ketan Kanakia in CRMAB no. 748 of 2021, reliance is placed on a medical certificate issued by a Consultant Physician certifying that the Applicant is suffering from ailments and has been advised to rest till 24.11.2021. Mr Jignesh, the applicant in No. 749 submitted that he will require protection for a brief period in order to facilitate the approaching of the competent court for seeking anticipatory bail.
Mr S. G. Bhobe, the Public Prosecutor pointed out that since the FIR is registered at Pune in Maharashtra, provided that the respondent state would not have much to say in the matter. Mr Bhobe submitted that even if the limited relief sought by the Applicant is to be granted, appropriate conditions need to be imposed, including a condition that would ensure that the Applicants do not misuse the limited relief that may be granted by this Court.
The court after a perusal of the judgements N. K. Nayar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , Shantanu Shivlal Muluk vs. The State of Maharashtra and Shrikant Gopilal Rathi & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., show that limited relief of protection can be granted to the Applicants only to facilitate their approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail.
The court directed “This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or the entitlement of the Applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. But, at the same time, since there is a possibility that the Applicants may be apprehended or arrested in connection with the said FIR if the Maharashtra Police take assistance of the local police in the State of Goa, it cannot be said that the apprehension is misplaced or imaginary.”
Judgement reviewed by Pranav Vyas.