In an anticipatory bail  usage, Rajesh Chauhan,J. has directed the police to release the applicant on transit bail on executing  particular bond ofRs.,000/- with two sureties of the like  quantum. The Court has also observed that there’s no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is  contended to have been committed and the case is registered. The Court observed that there’s no legislation or law which defines ‘ transit or anticipatory bail ’ in definitive or specific terms. Further, the 41st Law Commission Report recommended the provision of anticipatory bail to bulwark the right to life and personal liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and on  similar recommendation the provision of anticipatory bail was inserted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code( CrPC), 1973. It was also observed that the term “ transit ” means the act of being moved from one place to another while the word “ anticipatory bail ” means a temporary release of any  indicted person who’s anticipating arrest; therefore, transit anticipatory bail refers to bail granted to any person who’s apprehending arrest by police of a State other than the State he’s presently located in.   The Court reiterated that Section 438 CrPC specifies direction for  entitlement of bail to a person apprehending arrest and it confers power only upon the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant anticipatory or transit bail if they  suppose fit. still, “ transit anticipatory bail ” is different from “ ordinary bail ”, as ordinary bail is granted after arrest, releasing the accused from custody while anticipatory bail is granted in the  expectation of arrest i.e., it precedes detention of the accused and is effective  incontinently at the time of the arrest. therefore, when an accused is arrested in accordance with the order of the court and whereas the accused  requirements to be tried in some other competent court having jurisdiction in the matter, the  indicted is given bail for the transitory period i.e., the time period  needed for the accused to reach that competent court from the place he’s arrested in.   The Court viewed that transit bail is protection from arrest for a certain definite period as granted by the Court granting such transit bail, and the bare fact that an accused has been granted transit bail, doesn’t mean that the regular court, under whose jurisdiction the case would fall, would extend such transit bail and would convert such transit bail into anticipatory bail, and upon the  entitlement of transit bail, the accused, who has been granted such transit bail, must apply for anticipatory bail before the regular court. Further, the regular court would consider such anticipatory bail, on its own merits and shall decide such anticipatory bail  operation. thus, it could be easily said that transit bail is temporary.   The Court took note of the  opinions in Teesta Atul Setalvadv. State of Maharashtra, 2014 and Nikita Jacobv. State of Maharashtrawherein it was held that the “ High Court of one State can grant transit bail in respect of a case registered within the jurisdiction of another High Court in exercise of power under Section 438 CrPC “, The Court observed that there’s no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the applicants to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is  contended to have been committed and the case is registered. Further, there’s no  mistrustfulness that the right to liberty is enshrined in Part- III of the Constitution of India and such rights can not be  rammed except by following procedure established by law. therefore, in the present case the applicants should get the  concession of transitpre-arrest bail in the light of the order passed in the case of Nikita Jacob( supra). Further, this protection was granted for a period of six weeks from the date of the order to enable the applicant to approach the competent Court seeking  apt relief.