GAHC010264412025 2025:GAU-AS:16517

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : AB/2814/2025

AFRITI HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA

S/O JALAL UDDIN BARBHUIYAR/O CHANDRAPUR PT-IISTARYECHETIA

KANIRUP MEGD. NO.-13514MENT OF2ILED B THE

PEITTIONERTHROUGHUKA UAL KAACVOCP.S LALADIST HAILAKANDI,

ASSAM VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

2:KULDEEP KUMAR TRIPATHI

INVESTIGATION OFFICER

CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION

DIST. BASTI

UTTAR PRADESH

INDIA

PIN- 272001

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,U U

KHAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

02-12-2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused- applicant, namely, Afriti Hussain Barbhuiya, seeking transit anticipatory bail connection with in connection with Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 003/2025 under Sections

318(4)/319(2) of BNS, read with Section 66D of the I.T. Act.

3. It is the case of the accused applicant that he received a notice dated 14.10.2025 under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 from the I.O. of Cyber Crime Police Station, District-Basti, Uttar Pradesh, India in connection with Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 003/2025, wherein the accused applicant was directed to appear before him on 30.10.2025 at 10:00 am. It is stated that the applicant had received the said notice on 29.10.2025 and as he was not in a position to appear before the concerned I.O. because of his knee surgery that he had gone through recently, on 07.11.2025, he sent an E-mail to the I.O, intimating about his health condition and also intimating his willingness to cooperate with the investigation of the case by appearing before the concerned I.O. on the next available date. It is stated that by the aforesaid E-mail, he sought for a suitable date for his appearance before the I.O. However, it is stated that he did not receive any response from the I.O. till date and therefore, though he is willing to appear before the I.O., he has apprehension of his arrest as he has defaulted in appearing before the concerned I.O. on 30.10.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant could not appear before the concerned I.O. due to his genuine health issues and is very much willing to appear before the concerned I.O. However, since he is apprehending arrest, this Court if give him certain interim relief by way of transit bail, so that he can appear before the concerned I.O. within a short time.

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:-

“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