Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15420
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Rajesh Mazumdar, J
SHAH MEHBUB ALOM ALIAS SHAH MEHBOOB ALOM – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
AB/769/2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: S.318(4), S.319(2), S.61(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.438
Headnote
(B) Legal Principles for Transit Bail - Criteria for grant - Following the guidelines in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, transit bail may be granted in exceptional circumstances where denying it would cause irremediable prejudice to the applicant. (Para 6, 9)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to transit bail to approach the jurisdictional court in Delhi.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Kalita, F Islam
For the Respondents: PP, Assam
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the cyber fraud case and the issuance of notice to the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's request for transit bail based on apprehension of arrest and illness. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. application of the supreme court's guidelines on transit bail to the current facts. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. prosecution's objection to the grant of transit bail due to non-appearance. (Para 8) |
| 5. grant of transit bail to prevent irreversible prejudice and ensure access to the jurisdictional court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
Heard Mr. A. Parmanik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. KK Parasher, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Sangh Nagarik Suraksha Sahitha 2023 , praying for the grant of a transit bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Southwest (Delhi) Cyber PS Case No. 25 of 2026, which has been registered under section 318 (4)/319 (2)/ 61 (2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. On 30.1.2026, the informant lodged a written FIR before the Southwest (Delhi) Station House Officer, Cyber Police station alleging that he had been cheated of an amount of Rs. 14,15,000/- by an unknown cyber fraudster on the pretext of investment in stock trading and Indian Postal Orders allotment through a fake mobile trading application. The petitioner had received a notice on 15.3.2026 from the Sub Inspector of the Cyber Police Station, Southwest district, Delhi informing the petitioner that during the investigation of the FIR, it was revealed that there are reasonable grounds to question the petitioner to ascertain the facts and circumstances in relation to the ongoing investigation. This notice was issued in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 and the petitioner was required to appear before the Investigating Officer at the Santoli outpost under Boko police station in the district of Kamrup, Assam.
4. The petitioner has stated in his bail petition that due to his illness and there being a threat of his arrest and also to his life, he could not appear as directed by the investigating authority on 19.03.2026.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the FIR has been lodged at Delhi, the petitioner is eager to appear before the jurisdictional court in Delhi to move an application praying for regular bail. However, the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in the meantime by the investigating authority in connection with the FIR, and therefore, the prayer for grant of a transit bail may be allowed, so that the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional court to pray for appropriate relief.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Priya Indoria versus State of Karnataka and others , reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 where the Honorable Supreme Court has laid down the conditions for grant of transit bail, which are extracted here in 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
