Rafikul Islam vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Rafikul Islam, a businessman dealing in stone export and a regular GST and income tax payer, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transit anticipatory bail. He apprehended arrest in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Crime No. 2838/2023, registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. The petitioner discovered unauthorized transactions in his ICICI bank account between December 15-19, 2023, which he believed was hacked. He promptly requested his account be blocked. Subsequently, he received a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. from the Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru, in connection with a crime registered there, also asking him to appear regarding the Cyber Crime P.S. case. Due to late receipt of the notice, he could not comply and sought transit anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2023 SCC Online SC 1246), which reiterates that an accused can seek transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in their resident state, even if the FIR is registered elsewhere. This provision is crucial to secure the liberty of the individual under Article 21 of the Constitution and ensure access to justice, preventing potential arrest before they can approach the competent court. The Court found compelling circumstances to grant the bail, acknowledging the petitioner's denial of allegations and willingness to cooperate. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹2,00,000/- with a surety and was granted liberty for three weeks to appear before the concerned court in Cyberabad (Telangana) or move for bail before a court of competent jurisdiction. Failure to comply would result in cancellation of the bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail in light of the FIR registered in a different state and his apprehension of arrest, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2023 SCC online SC 1246)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he is a businessman with no prior criminal record, a regular tax filer, and a victim of cyber fraud where his bank account was compromised. He contended that granting transit anticipatory bail is permissible under law as per the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria, which allows individuals to seek such bail from courts in their resident state to secure their liberty and enable them to appear before the competent court. He emphasized his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue's Argument: The State opposed the grant of transit anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and involve cybercrime.