Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010170652025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1847/2025 SALIM ANOWAR S/O ABDUL KHALEQUE AHMED R/O VILL BADLA BAZAR NO. 2 TUPAMARI PS NAGARBERA DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR N AHMED,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. N Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Salim Anowar, who is apprehending arrest in Page No.# 2/4 connection with Cyber Crime PS Crime No. 144/2023, registered under Section 420 IPC read with Section 66D of the IT Act. 3. The petitioner stated that on 05.07.2025 the police of the Nagarbera Police Station called the petitioner to the police station to receive notice dated 06.10.2024 but he did not appear before the police to receive the notice. On 05.07.2025 on his behalf his father appeared before the police and received the notice dated 06.10.2024. After receipt of the notice he was shocked and surprised after perusal of the notice issued under Section 41(A) CrPC from Investigating Officer, Cybercrime Police Station, Section -36 Noida, Gautambudh Nagar-201301 in connection with Cybercrime PS Crime No. 144/2023 U/S 420 IPC r/w Section 66D IT Act directing the petitioner to appear before the I/O on 20.10.2024 at 11:00 AM at Cybercrime PS Sector 36 Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, UP-201301. As such, in view of such direction, there is serious apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that in the event of his appearance before the Investigating Officer, he might be arrested and put behind the bar and in that event he would be harassed, tortured and shall be branded as a criminal in the eye of the society. Hence, this anticipatory bail/anticipatory transit bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 before this Court. 4. The petitioner stated that after receipt of the above mentioned Notice, he obtained the Bank Statement and found that huge transactions took place which were credited and debited without his signature and knowledge. The petitioner never withdrawn any money nor deposited any amount of money, all these transactions were made behind his back. 5. In the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the conditions for grant of transit bail, which is extracted herein below:- 93.1. Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail. 93.2. The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation. 93.3 The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Page No.# 3/4 Section 438 of CrPC. 93.4 The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be - a) a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered; b). the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness; c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extra-territorial limited anticipatory bail. 94. It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in which an order of extra territorial anticipatory bail may be imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant. We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only which means where, denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant. The Court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Looking at the contents of the Notice dated 06.10.2024 as reflected in the instant application, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot have a reasonable apprehension of arrest, upon his arrival in Noida or even earlier and therefore, there is a reasonable and immediate threat to his personal liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR was registered. 7. Notice to the I/O and the Public Prosecutor, who are seized of the FIR, can be dispensed with as in the opinion of this Court, resorting to the same at this stage is likely to cause further delay in the investigation, as the said officials are in distant Noida. Therefore, I find the present case to be an appropriate one to exercise the discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed period and to direct the petitioner to make an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as otherwise, there is a scope for causing irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner within 21 days from today in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on transit bail on executing of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. Page No.# 4/4 9. It is made clear that the present interim protection in the form of transit bail has been granted to the petitioner only in order to enable him to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for anticipatory bail on merits. 10. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant