Limited anticipatory bail can be granted even outside territorial jurisdiction if justifying circumstances exist, stressing access to justice.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner, with an apprehension of arrest in connection with a case registered in Crime No. 25/2025 at Navi Mumbai Police Station, Maharashtra, for the offence punishable under Section 3(5), 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66 (D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, is before this court with a prayer to grant transit anticipatory bail, for a limited period, to enable him to approach the jurisdictional Court in the State of Maharashtra.

2. The gist of the complaint lodged by one Sunil Kumar Jagadeesh Singh, can be stated as under:

Complainant is in the business of supplying building materials, having a Current Bank Account in the name of S.K. LIME DEPOT, which he uses for his business. He is also having savings accounts with the Axis Bank. In the month of December, 2022, he received an online gaming link from a online gaming website namely SAT Sports www.satsport.com and a mobile number from his friend. Based on the information provided by his friend, he logged into the website by calling the mobile number provided to him and thereafter, registered an account ID satmd 12897. He invested money in different online games using the gaming platform. The amount won was visible on the website. On 21.12.2022, he transferred a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to play Teen patti, casino and other games. He withdrew a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-, which gave confidence to him. Then he started winning small amounts and withdrew the amount, got credited into his bank accounts. He won a sum of Rs.5,10,00,000/- but when he tried to withdraw the said amount, he could withdraw only Rs.50,00,000/- and not the remaining amount. Hence, he contacted a person named Vicky M.K., an employee of gaming website SAT Sports, but could not get any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, he found that his gaming account was blocked, that is when he realised that he was cheated.

3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest, as the police have visited his house and the house of his brother. It is submitted that a notice was issued under Section 3(5) (3) of the BNSS, 2023 dated 11.07.2025, to his brother Nimesh Ahuja, wherein the police have enquired about the petitioner and they are now bent upon to arrest him, without any basis.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that during the course of investigation, the police have arrested one Ojas Nithin Tendulkar, and it is reliably learnt that during interrogation, the said person revealed the name of petitioner's brother, and since his brother is residing in Dubai, the police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was born with a congenital heart disease and suffering from various health issues (medical documents furnished). He submits that petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and since he is presently residing in Bangalore, he has a reasonable apprehension of his arrest before he could approach the jurisdictional Court in the State of Maharashtra (case registered at Navi Mumbai Police Station).

6. The offence alleged in the FIR is under Section 3(5), 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66 (D) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The name of the petitioner is not in the FIR. It is relevant to extract Para 46 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2023) 15 SCR 525:

"46. If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is made solely with reference to the concept of territorial jurisdiction it would be adding a restriction to the exercise of powers under Section 438. This, in our view, would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be ag