Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010264412025 2025:GAU-AS:16517 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2814/2025 AFRITI HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA S/O JALAL UDDIN BARBHUIYAR/O CHANDRAPUR PT-IISTARYECHETIA KANIRUP MEGD. NO.-13514MENT OF2ILED B THE PEITTIONERTHROUGHUKA UAL KAACVOCP.S LALADIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:KULDEEP KUMAR TRIPATHI INVESTIGATION OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION DIST. BASTI UTTAR PRADESH INDIA PIN- 272001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 02-12-2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused- applicant, namely, Afriti Hussain Barbhuiya, seeking transit anticipatory bail connection with in connection with Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 003/2025 under Sections 318(4)/319(2) of BNS, read with Section 66D of the I.T. Act. 3. It is the case of the accused applicant that he received a notice dated 14.10.2025 under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 from the I.O. of Cyber Crime Police Station, District-Basti, Uttar Pradesh, India in connection with Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 003/2025, wherein the accused applicant was directed to appear before him on 30.10.2025 at 10:00 am. It is stated that the applicant had received the said notice on 29.10.2025 and as he was not in a position to appear before the concerned I.O. because of his knee surgery that he had gone through recently, on 07.11.2025, he sent an E-mail to the I.O, intimating about his health condition and also intimating his willingness to cooperate with the investigation of the case by appearing before the concerned I.O. on the next available date. It is stated that by the aforesaid E-mail, he sought for a suitable date for his appearance before the I.O. However, it is stated that he did not receive any response from the I.O. till date and therefore, though he is willing to appear before the I.O., he has apprehension of his arrest as he has defaulted in appearing before the concerned I.O. on 30.10.2025. 4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant could not appear before the concerned I.O. due to his genuine health issues and is very much willing to appear before the concerned I.O. However, since he is apprehending arrest, this Court if give him certain interim relief by way of transit bail, so that he can appear before the concerned I.O. within a short time. Page No.# 3/4 5. In the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. 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 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. On perusal of the Notice dated 14.10.2025 issued to the accused applicant by the I.O. of Cyber Crime Police Station, it is seen that the accused was intimated that if he fails to comply with the conditions/restrictions of the notice, then the accused will be arrested by the I.O., in accordance with the provisions of the law. Page No.# 4/4 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is seen that there is some serious apprehension of arrest of the accused applicant in the event he appears before the concerned I.O. as he has already defaulted in appearing before the concerned I.O. on the schedule date of 30.10.2025. 8. This Court has also considered the aspect of giving notice to the I.O. of Cyber Crime Police Station, District-Basti, Uttar Pradesh, India. 9. Since the instant bail is only for facilitating the accused applicant to appear before the I.O., therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that notice to the I.O. of this case will consume some more time and that will cause further delay in the case. Therefore, this Court finds this case a fit case to exercise the discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed period and to direct the accused applicant to make an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as otherwise, there is a scope for causing irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the accused applicant. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused applicant within 21 days (three weeks) 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. 11. This Court makes it clear that the present interim protection in the form of transit bail has been granted to the accused applicant only in order to enable the accused applicant to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for anticipatory bail on merits. 12. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant