Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010117442026 2026:GAU-AS:8727 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1308/2026 SAMSUL ALAM S/O KUMAL UDDIN, R/O KHATAKUCHI, P.O. GHUGHUBARI, P.S. KALGACHIA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DELHI PIN-110001. 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NCT DELHI PIN 110001 4:THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER CYBER POLICE STATION SOUTH EAST DISTRICT NEW DELH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MR. S S A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. S.S.A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for seeking transit anticipatory bail/interim protection from arrest in connection with the FIR No. 33/2023 dated 04.07.2023 registered under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Cyber Police Station, South-East District, New Delhi. 3. It appears that an FIR No. 33/2023 dated 04.07.2023 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Cyber Police Station, South-East, New Delhi and in connection with the said case, a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued to the petitioner on 22.05.2026, directing him to appear before the I/O on 01.06.2026 at the said police station. 4. The said notice has been annexed to the instant bail application as Annexure-3. However, another notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. has also been annexed, pertaining to the same police case, asking the petitioner to appear on 17.03.2026 at Cyber Police Station, South-East, New Delhi. 5. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Assam and he has no knowledge regarding the source of money which has been credited to his Page No.# 3/7 account. It is further stated that the petitioner never participated in any fraudulent activity nor had any intention to cheat any person and that two of his friends requested the OTP for the purpose of cancelling a Flipkart order and accordingly, the petitioner provided the said OTP to them. 6. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the aforesaid case while travelling to New Delhi or on appearance before the I/O and requires reasonable time to approach a competent Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence seeking appropriate legal remedy including anticipatory bail. It is submitted that in the absence of transit protection, the valuable right of the petitioner to approach the competent Court may be frustrated. The FIR of the case has not been annexed to the instant petition and therefore, the Court at this stage is not in a position to know about the particulars of offence to which the FIR in question pertains. 7. In Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka And Ors. reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749, it has been laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court as follows:- “36. In view of what we have discussed above, we are of the view that considering the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen's right to life, personal liberty and dignity, the High Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of Page No.# 4/7 justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, and subject to the following conditions: (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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 Cr.P.C. (iv) 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 Page No.# 5/7 owing to arbitrariness; c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extraterritorial limited anticipatory bail. 37. 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 Cr.P.C. 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.” 8. On perusal of the aforesaid notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., it can be seen that the petitioner was asked to appear before the I/O on 17.03.2026, but till now, going by the averments in the bail application, no attempt has been made by the I/O to arrest the petitioner. Instead, a second notice dated 22.05.2026 under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued asking him to appear Page No.# 6/7 on 01.06.2026 before the I/O. Nothing has been stated as to why the applicant apprehends arrest, now, when he has not been arrested for so long and in the absence of the FIR, it is not possible for the Court to determine the impact of grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be on the status of the investigation. 9. Furthermore, nothing has been stated in the bail application regarding the inability of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction. The applicant has raised no such ground such as reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty or bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered or violation of his right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness. Nothing has also been stated regarding any medical disability of the petitioner preventing him from seeking bail before the jurisdictional Court. 10. From the above, it can be seen the none of the conditions laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priya Indoria (Supra) has been fulfilled in the instant case and it has been reiterated therein, that the power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only when denying anticipatory bail or interim protection would cause irremediable and reversible prejudice to the applicant. 11. Having regard to what has been discussed above, I am of the considered Page No.# 7/7 view that this is not a fit case for grant of transit anticipatory bail. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Court having territorial jurisdiction for such remedy as may be available under the law. 12. The petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant