Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010068152026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/769/2026 SHAH MEHBUB ALOM ALIAS SHAH MEHBOOB ALOM S/O TAIZUDDIN ALOM RESIDENT OF MAJARCHAR, PS ALOPATI, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : P. KALITA, MR. F ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. A. Parmanik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. KK Parasher, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Sangh Nagarik Suraksha Sahitha 2023, praying for the grant of a transit bail to the accused Page No.# 2/6 petitioner in connection with Southwest (Delhi) Cyber PS Case No. 25 of 2026, which has been registered under section 318 (4)/319 (2)/ 61 (2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. On 30.1.2026, the informant lodged a written FIR before the Southwest (Delhi) Station House Officer, Cyber Police station alleging that he had been cheated of an amount of Rs. 14,15,000/- by an unknown cyber fraudster on the pretext of investment in stock trading and Indian Postal Orders allotment through a fake mobile trading application. The petitioner had received a notice on 15.3.2026 from the Sub Inspector of the Cyber Police Station, Southwest district, Delhi informing the petitioner that during the investigation of the FIR, it was revealed that there are reasonable grounds to question the petitioner to ascertain the facts and circumstances in relation to the ongoing investigation. This notice was issued in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 and the petitioner was required to appear before the Investigating Officer at the Santoli outpost under Boko police station in the district of Kamrup, Assam. 4. The petitioner has stated in his bail petition that due to his illness and there being a threat of his arrest and also to his life, he could not appear as directed by the investigating authority on 19.03.2026. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the FIR has been lodged at Delhi, the petitioner is eager to appear before the jurisdictional Page No.# 3/6 court in Delhi to move an application praying for regular bail. However, the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in the meantime by the investigating authority in connection with the FIR, and therefore, the prayer for grant of a transit bail may be allowed, so that the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional court to pray for appropriate relief. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Priya Indoria versus State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 where the Honorable Supreme Court has laid down the conditions for grant of transit bail, which are extracted here in below: “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 Page No.# 4/6 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.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of the bail Page No.# 5/6 petition, stating that the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment of the Honorable Apex Court, since he has never been to the state of Delhi 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 Delhi without a protection during his transit to Delhi. 8. Mr. KK Parasher, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to the prayer for the grant of transit Bill and has submitted that the petitioner was required to appear before the investigating authority here at Kamrup on the 19th of March 2026; however, the petitioner did not appear and has now approached this court praying for a transit bail. The learned counsel has submitted that no circumstances exist for the grant of a transit bail to the petitioner. 9. 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 Delhi or even earlier, and therefore, there is a reasonable and immediate threat to his personal liberty in the jurisdiction where 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 Page No.# 6/6 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 14 days from today in connection with the Southwest Delhi Cyber PS Case No. 25/2026, the petitioner shall be released on 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. 10. It is made clear that the present interim protection is in the form of a 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. 11. The anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant