SHANTANU SHIVLAL MULUK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate appearing for the applicant. Learned APP waives notice for respondent/State. The applicant is seeking transit anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.49/2021 registered at Police Station, Special Cell, New Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 153-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is resident of Beed and the offence has been registered at New Delhi. It would take time for him to reach to New Delhi and engage an Advocate and to file an application for anticipatory bail. He also submits that the matter pertains to the three disputed farmers' laws, which was introduced as an ordinance. The farmers are protesting since September, 2020. Some online foundations, who are supporting the protests by farmers had come together. Indian environmental and Farmer's co-alliation was joined by XR India. Present applicant is one of the founder member and it is stated that XR India is working for environment for long time. A platform was created. Various information was displayed on ongoing protest. The learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that later on a platform has been created, which is now known as Took Kit, wherein one could get at one place, links to all the movements and protests and the links to the website of the participating foundations. It was transpired that one Ask India Why Foundation was handled by poetic justice foundation from Canada. There was a link to Ask India Why Foundation page on the took kit and it is stated that once that page was opened there was link to the poetic justice foundation, and once that page was opened there was a link having reference to the Khalistan movement and now the State is calling all those activities as terrorists activities and under those circumstances the Delhi police have lodged First Information Report against unknown persons. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the said offence. He requests that sufficient time be given to approach the competent Court for seeking appropriate relief.

(3.) Learned APP has taken objection about filing of the application in this Court, the jurisdiction of this Court and also the fact that even the copy of the FIR has not been annexed in order to come to the conclusion that the applicant has any kind of apprehension of arrest. It is also submitted that if the applicant is having apprehension of arrest at the hands of Delhi Police, then the Delhi Police ought to have been made party to the proceedings. Reliance has been placed on the decision by this Court at Principal Seat in Augustine Francis Pinto and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, , wherein it has been held that jurisdiction for control and inquiry of Criminal Courts should be local commission of crime and not residence of accused nor place where he might choose to reside and found in other part of country. Under the facts of the case before the Court then, it was held that the petitions for transit anticipatory bail were held to be not maintainable.