Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010270042025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2867/2025 MOHAMMAD HABIBUR RAHMAN ALIAS HABIBUR RAHMAN S/O MOHAMMAD SIDDEK AHMED VILL- BADEJAMA, BARAIGRAM PO.S. PATHARKANDI,PIN-788723 DIST. SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MR. A DEKA,MS N J BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 08-12-2025 Heard Mr. S.H Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Das, learned Addl. P.P for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for granting transit anticipatory bail to the accused applicant, namely, Mohammad Habibur Rahman @ Habibur Rahman in connection with FIR No. 42/2025 under Section 61(2), 112,126 (2), 204, 205, 308(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2) of BNS, Page No.# 2/4 2023 read with Section 66 (A), 66 (D) of I.T. Act, 2000 registered at Nodal Cyber Police Station, Maharashtra Cyber, Mumbai 3. It is the case of the accused applicant that on 29.11.2025, he received a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maharashtra State Cyber, Mumbai bearing O/W No. 6802/MHCYBER/2025 directed the accused applicant to appear before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Maharashtra Cycle Office, 32nd Floor, World Trade Centre, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai on 29.11.2025 at 11.00 AM. As the accused applicant received the notice only on 29.11.2025, he could not appear before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai. It is the case of the accused applicant that as he could not appear within the stipulated time, he has serious apprehension of being arrested in connection with the aforesaid case at any moment. 4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that though the accused applicant is very much willing to appear before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, he could not do so the petitioner received the said notice only on 29.11.2025, as such he could not appear on the same day i.e. 29.11.2025 before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai. Therefore, he submits that given an opportunity he will arrange for travelling and filing a bail application before the appropriate Court at Mumbai and hence, he has filed the instant application praying for granting him transit anticipatory bail in connection with the aforementioned case. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that he should be allowed to go on transit anticipatory bail for a limited period of one month’s time so that he can approach the appropriate Court for required relief before the appropriate Court in Mumbai. 5. In this connection, the case of Priya Indoria –Vs- State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 being relevant is referred to and certain paragraphs of the aforesaid case are 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 extraterritorial 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 25.11.2025 issued to the accused applicant by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maharashtra State Cyber, Mumbai, it is seen that Page No.# 4/4 the accused was intimated that if he fails to comply with the conditions mentioned in the notice, he shall be liable for arrest under Section 35 (6) of BNSS, 2023. 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 officer as he has already defaulted in appearing before the concerned officer on the schedule date of 29.11.2025. 8. Since the instant bail application is only for facilitating the accused applicant to approach the appropriate Court at Mumbai having jurisdiction for appropriate relief so that the accused applicant can make himself available before the concerned authority i.e. Maharashtra State Cyber, Mumbai, this Court is of the considered the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed period and to allow the accused applicant to make an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction in Mumbai, otherwise there is a scope for causing irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the accused applicant. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused applicant, namely, Mohammad Habibur Rahman @ Habibur Rahman within 4(four) weeks from today in connection with the aforementioned case, he should be released on transit anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with 2(two) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 10. 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. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant