Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010075152026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/802/2026 MEGHA ROY D/O BABLU ROY R/O H. NO.29, HILL VIEW ROAD, JYOTIKUCHI, ODALBAKRA,P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781034. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, MR R DAS,MR A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 21.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying Page No.# 2/4 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner namely Megha Roy, in connection with Baranagar P.S. Case No. 463/2025, registered under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 through the O.C of Fatasil Ambari, Kamrup(M), which was issued by Baranagar, Police Station, West Bengal. 3. The petitioner was directed to meet the Investigating Officer at a suitable place or during office hours at Baranagar P.S., Kolkata, within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. 4. It is stated in the petition that upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner became aware that Baranagar P.S. Case No. 463/2025 (dated 30.11.2025) was registered under sections relating to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The petitioner maintains she is in no way connected with the alleged offence. However, the petitioner has failed to annex a copy of the FIR to the instant application, which prevents this Court from assessing whether there exists a genuine apprehension of arrest. Furthermore, the notice served appears to be under Section 179 of the BNSS, which is issued to a witness rather than an accused person. 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.# 3/4 "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. 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 Page No.# 4/4 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. 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 West Bengal. 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. 7. Since the petitioner has been issued a notice only in her capacity of witness, this Court is of the considered view that the conditions laid down in Priya Indoria (Supra) are not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the present case and no exceptional or compelling circumstances have been shown to justify the grant of transit anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioner stands rejected, and the petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant