Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010077982025 2025:GAU-AS:4797 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/863/2025 NUR ISLAM ALI AND ANR S/O IBRAHIM ALI R/O IBRAHIM ALI R/O UJANKURI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM 2: FAIJUL HAQUE @ FOIJUL HAQUE S/O JALIL ALI R/O ADHIARPARA P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S M MOLLAH, MS. F BEGUM,MR. D N AMIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 22.04.2025 Heard Mr. S. M. Mollah, learned counsel of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in connection with CEN P.S. Case No. 158/2025, registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS and read with Sections 66(C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act, 2000. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mollah, that the petitioners are innocent and are not involved in the alleged case. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 received the first notice on 26.03.2025, which had been issued on 12.03.2025, and petitioner No. 2 received the first notice on 28.03.2025, which had been issued on 17.03.2025, under Sections 94/179 of the BNSS, 2023. Both petitioners subsequently received second notices dated 22.03.2025, under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, which were delivered to them on 04.04.2025. 4. He further submitted that neither of the petitioners has any criminal antecedents whatsoever, nor have they ever been arrested in connection with any offence. However, the police of the CEN Police Station, North Division, Bengaluru City, issued notices to the petitioners for reasons best known to them. It is also submitted that both petitioners, upon receiving the first notices, responded through their advocate by registered post to the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case. Nevertheless, the Investigating Officer again issued second notices to them under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Consequently, the petitioners have an apprehension of being arrested in connection with this case. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before IO, and to cooperate fully with the investigation, provided Page No.# 3/5 they are granted some interim protection in the form of transit anticipatory bail. 5. In addition to his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 1164 [Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Others], wherein the Court held that the provision for transit anticipatory bail is intended to secure the liberty of the individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, provided that the person apprehending arrest makes out a case for such relief. He specifically relied on paragraphs 102 and 103 of the said judgment, which read as under: “45. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that the accused cannot seek full-fledged anticipatory bail in a State where he is a resident when the FIR has been registered in a different State. However, in view of what we have discussed above, he would be entitled to seek a transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in the State where he is a resident which necessarily has to be of a limited duration so as to seek regular anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. The need for such a provision is to secure the liberty of the individual concerned. Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and since we have extended the concept of access to justice to such a situation and bearing in mind Article 14 thereof it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail. Otherwise, in a deserving case, there is likelihood of denial of personal liberty as well as access to justice for, by the time the person concerned approaches the Court of competent jurisdiction to seek anticipatory bail, it may well be too late as he may be arrested. Needless to say, the Court granting transit anticipatory bail would obviously examine the degree and seriousness of the apprehension expressed by the person who seeks transit anticipatory bail; while the object underlying exercise of such jurisdiction is to thwart arbitrary police action and to protect personal liberty besides providing immediate access to justice though within a limited conspectus. 46. If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is made solely with reference to the concept of territorial jurisdiction it would be Page No.# 4/5 adding a restriction to the exercise of powers under Section 438. This, in our view, would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice. We say so for the reason that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail.” 6. In this context, Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegation against the accused/petitioners pertains to unauthorized money transactions, which fall under the domain of cyber crime. Hence, at this stage, he raised an objection to the grant of pre-arrest transit bail to the accused/petitioners. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, as well as the annexures filed along with the petition and other aspects of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting the privilege of interim transit anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioners for a period of 21 (twenty one) days from the date of this order, enabling the petitioners to appear before the I.O and approach the competent Sessions Court or the Hon’ble High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail or regular bail. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, namely, 1. Nur Islam Ali and 2. Faijul Haque @ Foijul Haque, in connection with CEN P.S. Case No. 158/2025, registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS and read with Sections 66(C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act, they shall be enlarged on interim transit bail Page No.# 5/5 on their executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 21(twenty one) days; and (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. In terms of the above, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant