GAHC010270112025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/2868/2025

BABAR HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL ROUF

VILL- KALAKHOURI, P.S. PATHARKANDI

P.O. ERALIGOOL, PIN-788723.DIST. SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ), ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MR. A DEKA,MS N J BEGUM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

Date : 08-12-2025

Heard Mr. S.H Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.

Das, learned Addl. P.P for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for granting transit anticipatory bail to the accused applicant, namely, Md Babar Hussain in connection with FIR No. 42/2025 under Section 61(2), 112,126 (2), 204, 205, 308(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section

66(A), 66(D) of I.T. Act, 2000 registered at Nodal Cyber Police Station, Maharashtra Cyber, Mumbai

3. It is the case of the accused applicant that on 29.11.2025, he received a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maharashtra State Cyber, Mumbai bearing O/W No. 6802/MHCYBER/2025 directed the accused applicant to appear before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Maharashtra Cycle Office, 32nd Floor, World Trade Centre, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai on 29.11.2025 at 11.00 AM. As the accused applicant received the notice only on 29.11.2025, he could not appear before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai. It is the case of the accused applicant that as he could not appear within the stipulated time, he has serious apprehension of being arrested in connection with the aforesaid case at any moment.

4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that though the accused applicant is very much willing to appear before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, he could not do so the petitioner received the said notice only on 29.11.2025, as such he could not appear on the same day i.e. 29.11.2025 before the Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai. Therefore, he submits that given an opportunity he will arrange for travelling and filing a bail application before the appropriate Court at Mumbai and hence, he has filed the instant application praying for granting him transit anticipatory bail in connection with the aforementioned case. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that he should be allowed to go on transit anticipatory bail for a limited period of one month’s time so that he can approach the appropriate Court for required relief before the appropriate Court in Mumbai.

5. In this connection, the case of Priya Indoria –Vs- State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 being relevant is referred to and certain paragraphs of the aforesaid case are extracted herein 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 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 bod