Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010202792026 2026:GAU-AS:14320 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2323/2026 FAIJUL ISLAM S/O NOIM UDDIN, VILLAGE PASCHIM FUTALJAR, P.O. PUB FUTALJAR, P.S. RUPAHI, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, MR. J UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 25.09.2026 Heard Mr. M Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting Page No.# 2/5 transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Cyber Crime Case Csr No. 223/2026, registered at Cybercrime Wing, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai, Tamilnadu. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a customer of Punjab National Bank, Bahrampur Branch, Nagaon, where he has an account and the said account has been frozen by the bank and upon enquiry, he was informed that the aforesaid case has been registered against him at in the state of Tamil Nadu by the Cybercrime Wing, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, and the Bank Manager provided him with a copy of a police notice under Section 94 of BNSS dated 24.07.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner apprehends an arrest in connection with the aforesaid case if he appears before the I.O. and has hence prays for grant of transit anticipatory bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’bleApex Court in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2024) 4 SCC 749 and Teesta Aul Setalvad & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 372. 4. In the case of Priya Indoria (Supra), it has been held as follows:- 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:- Page No.# 3/5 "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 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. 6. It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in Page No.# 4/5 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." 7. In the present case, nothing has been stated as to why the petitioner is unable to seek anticipatory bail from the court of competent territorial jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu. Moreover, there is no material to suggest a reasonable or imminent threat to the life, personal liberty, or bodily harm of the petitioner in the jurisdiction where the FIR is lodged.” 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has not even received any notice from the I.O. to appear either as an accused or as a witness. 9. In the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra), what has been held is that Page No.# 5/5 there is no fetter on the High Court in exercising its power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail for a limited period to enable the applicant to move the appropriate Court, which proposition is not in dispute. However, in Priya Indoria (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the circumstances under which such power is to be exercised. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find the present case to be a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. 11. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant