Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010163752026 2026:GAU-AS:11737 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1827/2026 MONJUL ALOM S/O. ABDUR RASHID, R/O. TARABARI, P.S. BOKO, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSA. PIN CODE 781135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 18.08 . 2026 Heard Md. I Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P for the State. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, for grant of pre-arrest anticipatory bail/ anticipatory transit bail to the petitioner, namely, Page No.# 2/5 Monjul Alom, in connection with Vibhutipur Police Station, Bihar vide NCRP Ack No.30510240046117 dated 20.10.2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been supplied with a copy of an email sent from the investigating authority to the bank where the petitioner maintains the account bearing No. 924010030234578, where the Bank Officials had been advised to contact the investigating officer and guide the customer to maintain relevant transaction details etc. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has received phone calls from the investigating authorities to appear before them and to face likely arrest, since his bank account had been allegedly used for fraudulent transactions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is eager to participate in the investigation process and appear before the investigating authority and also approach the appropriate forum law having territorial jurisdiction over the matter to seek legal remedies, however, he apprehends that during the course of his journey from here to Bihar, Samastipur to appear before the investigation authority, he may be taken into custody. 6. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that notice to the investigating authority is required as per the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749, where the Apex Court has held as follows: Page No.# 3/5 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 toSection 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 Page No.# 4/5 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. 7. Accordingly, he has prayed that the interim relief to the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P represented the State of Assam. 9. Notice to the I/O and the Public Prosecutor, who are seized of the investigation, can be dispensed with in the present case, 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 Bihar Samastipur. 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. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, Monjul Alom, 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.# 5/5 11. 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. 12. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant