Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010187172026 2026:GAU-AS:12726 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2065/2026 ALIM UDDIN . S/O- SULTAN ALI R/O- MANJURIBIL, TUKRAPARA P.S- CHHAYGAON DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 AB No. 2065 of 2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 02.09. 2026 Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P Goswami, learned Addl. P.P for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting temporary or transit pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Alim Uddin, in connection with Jhargram Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 1/2026 u/s 318(4)/319(2)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner has received notice under Section 35(1) of BNSS, 2023 from Inspector, Cyber Crime, Police Station, Jhargram, West Bengal. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of the bail petition, stating that the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension, since he has never been to the state of West Bengal and it would be quite impossible for him to have access to Justice, if he is forced to avail the remedy before the jurisdictional court at West Bengal without a protection during his transit to West Bengal. 4. 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 first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail. Page No.# 3/4 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. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner may have a reasonable apprehension of his arrest upon his arrival at West Bengal or even earlier, and therefore, there is a reasonable and immediate threat to his personal liberty in the jurisdiction where Page No.# 4/4 the FIR was registered. Though the matter has been listed today for the first time after its filing, this court notices that requiring the public prosecutor or the investigation officer to produce the relevant case diary, etc., in the matter would only cause a delay in the finalization of the investigation. Therefore, this Court finds the present case to be a fit and appropriate case in which the discretion to grant an interim protection to the petitioner for a fixed period of time, directing him to make an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction, would suffice the interest of justice, since in any other event, there would be a scope for causing irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that, in the event of the arrest of the petitioner within 21 days from today in connection with the Jhargram Cyber Crime P.S Case No. 1/2026, the petitioner shall be released on an interim transit bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authorities. 6. It is made clear that the present interim protection is in the form of an interim transit bail only, in order to enable him to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to seek such legal remedy as may be available to him on merits. 7. The anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant