[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 2 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010065572026
2026:GAU-AS:4927
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/685/2026
SHONAULLAH
S/O SHADULLAH HOQUE, R/O HATISHOLA PAM , P.S. CHHAYGAON, DIST.
KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
02.04.2026
Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. M. P Goswami, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam.
2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for
grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner namely Shonaullah, who
is apprehending arrest in connection with South West (Delhi) Cyber P.S.
Case No. 105/2026 u/s 308/318(4)/319/340 of BNS, 2023.
3. An F.I.R was lodged before the South West (Delhi) SHO Cyber Police
Station wherein he inter-alia alleged that, the informant have been a victim
of online financial fraud of Rs. 2217686/-. This financial fraud had occurred
within the Delhi jurisdiction and someone has deceived and cheated the
informant pretending to be someone else and made to deliver the property
(money) of Rs. 2217686/-. They also use fake document and pretend it
was real and hence the case.
4. The petitioner has received a notice dated 09.03.2026, from the I.O
and apprehends that he may be arrested immediately upon his arrival in
South West Delhi in response to the aforesaid notice. Hence, this case for
transit bail.
5. On perusal of the notice, the petitioner claimed that he is an innocent
person, and in no way involved into the alleged case. In fact, the petitioner
is a cultivator and one Rafikul Islam, resident of Mahatoli, PS. Boko, in the
Page No.# 3/6
district of Kamrup, Assam approached the petitioner to open a bank
account for obtaining KYC loan and as such the petitioner furnished the
relevant documents to said Rafikuk Islam and finally beyond the knowledge
of the petitioner the said Rafikuk Islam used those documents and opened
the alleged Current Account beyond the knowledge of the petitioner and
petitioner is totally unknown about the alleged transactions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was kept in
dark about the alleged transaction made by the said Rafikul Islam, resident
of Mahatoli, P.S. Boko, in the district of kamrup, Assam and he only come
to know that there have been gone some suspicious transactions took place
in the account of the accused/petitioner. After receiving the notice u/s 35
(3) of the BNS, 2023 the petitioner visited the Bank to avail Bank statement
against his account however, on being sought the same, the Bank official
refused to provide the bank statement as the Police personnel of South
west (Delhi) cyber police station already freezed the same as he was
suggested to go through the mail Id linked with the Bank account of the
accused/petitioner.
7. Looking at the contents of the FIR as reflected in the instant
application, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot have a reasonable
apprehension of arrest, upon his arrival in South West Delhi or even earlier
and therefore, there is a reasonable and immediate threat to his personal
liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR was registered.
8. 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:-
Page No.# 4/6
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 where the FIR is registered;
b). the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or
impediments owing to arbitrariness;
c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extra-
territorial limited anticipatory bail.
Page No.# 5/6
94. 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 CrPC 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.
9. Although no notice was issued to the I/O and the Public Prosecutor,
who are seized of the FIR on the first date of the hearing, in the opinion of
this Court, resorting to the same at this final stage of hearing is likely to
cause further delay in the investigation, as the said officials are in distant
South West Delhi. Therefore, I find the present case to be an appropriate
case to excise the discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed period
and to direct the petitioner to make an application before the Court of
competent jurisdiction, as otherwise, there is a scope for causing
irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the
petitioner within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid case,
he shall be released on transit bail on executing of personal bond of
Page No.# 6/6
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.
11. It is made clear that the present interim protection in the form of
transit bail has been granted to the petitioner only in order to enable him
to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for anticipatory bail on
merits.
12. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
