Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010180102026 2026:GAU-AS:12260 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2016/2026 ANOWAR HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL JUBBAR, RESIDENT OF VILL- MECHPARA, PO- MECHPARA, BARNAGAR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM-781313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA 6TH FLOOR KHB COMPLEX CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560009 3:THE POLICE INSPECTOR CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION RAICHUR KARNATAKA-58410 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MS. R YASMIN,MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 26.08 . 2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting transit pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Anowar Hussain, in connection with FIR No. 11/2026, under Sections 66 (c)/ 66 (d) IT Act, 2008 and Section 318 (4)/ 319 (2), 336 BNS, 2023. 3. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner had received the notice dated 21.07.2026 belatedly and, therefore, he apprehends that he may be arrested in the event he appears before the officer concerned after the delay. 4. Accordingly, he has submitted that the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of an interim transit bail to enable him to participate in the investigation process. 5. 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: 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 Page No.# 3/5 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 Page No.# 4/5 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. Accordingly, he has prayed that the interim relief to the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P represented the State of Assam. 8. 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 Raichur, Karnataka. 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. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, Anowar Hussain, within 21 days from today in connection with the Page No.# 5/5 aforesaid case, he shall be released on transit bail on execution of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 10. 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. 11. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant