Duration Of Transit Bail Protection Cannot Be Stretched Indefinitely: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing a petition in which the applicant sought continuation of protection after his transit bail period had served its purpose.

A Bench comprising Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that “once the person avails of that opportunity and the jurisdiction of the competent court is invoked, the transit bail’s effect ought to cease. The duration of such protection cannot be stretched indefinitely, as that would virtually amount to converting a transit bail into a regular or anticipatory bail, which lies beyond the jurisdiction of the court granting such temporary relief.”

Advocate Rajdeep Bhattacharya represented the petitioner, while Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The petitioner had been granted transit anticipatory bail for a limited duration, solely to approach the competent court for appropriate relief. He did so, but his application for regular bail was rejected on the merits.

Thereafter, he returned to the Delhi High Court seeking continuation of the protection originally granted during transit, contending that arrest during the pendency of further legal remedies would cause irreparable prejudice.

The State opposed the prayer, arguing that the petitioner had already availed the opportunity to approach the jurisdictional court and that transit bail automatically stood exhausted. It was submitted that continued protection would amount to conferring regular or anticipatory bail through the back door, without territorial jurisdiction.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court, upon examining the records, held that transit bail derives its justification exclusively from the necessity of allowing an accused to approach the appropriate court. Such relief, the Court remarked, “is meant solely to protect the applicant from immediate arrest for a short and definite period so as to enable him to approach the court having jurisdiction to seek appropriate relief, whether anticipatory or regular bail.”

The Bench observed that transit bail is not a substitute for regular or anticipatory bail and cannot remain operative once the competent court has been seized of the matter. The Bench held that the duration of such protection cannot be stretched indefinitely, as that would virtually amount to converting a transit bail into a regular or anticipatory bail.

The Court emphasised that merely because the accused intends to pursue further remedies after rejection of bail does not entitle him to continue enjoying transit protection. The jurisdictional line is clear: the transit order does not revive or reactivate upon the failure of bail before the appropriate forum.

The Bench further explained that the essence of transit bail lies in its temporary and facilitative nature. It is not intended to confer a continuing protection or to adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations against the accused. Rather, it is intended to serve as a temporary safeguard to ensure that an individual is not deprived of their liberty while exercising their right to approach the appropriate court for relief.

Consequently, the Court concluded that “once the person avails of that opportunity and the jurisdiction of the competent court is invoked, the transit bail's effect ought to cease.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking continuation of protection, holding that the relief had served its limited purpose and could not be extended or converted into any form of substantive bail.

The petitioner was left to pursue remedies available under the law before the competent forum.

Cause Title: Arka Bhattacharya v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9768)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Arka Pritam Chowdhury, Amian Das and Ritika Sharma

Respondents: Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment