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 Electronic City Police Station (Bengaluru, Karnataka) Crime No. 02/2024, registered under Section 66(C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act and Section 420 IPC. The petitioner discovered unauthorized transactions in his ICICI bank business account between December 15-19, 2023, and promptly requested the bank to block the account, which was done. Subsequently, he received a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. from the Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru, asking him to appear for investigation. Due to late receipt of the notice, he could not comply and filed the present petition.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail. The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations involving cyber crime and Section 420 IPC but also noted the petitioner's denial of the allegations and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Others, the Court reiterated that an accused can seek transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in their state of residence for a limited duration to enable them to seek regular anticipatory bail from the competent court where the FIR is registered. The Court found compelling circumstances to grant transit anticipatory bail to facilitate the petitioner's appearance before the concerned court in Karnataka. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹2,00,000/- with one solvent surety and was granted liberty for three weeks to appear before the competent court or move for bail. Failure to comply would result in cancellation of the bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., considering the FIR is registered in a different state than his residence? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is a businessman with no prior criminal record, a regular tax payer, and a victim of cyber fraud where his bank account was hacked, leading to unauthorized transactions. He submitted that he promptly took steps to block his account and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. to support his claim for transit anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to secure his liberty and ensure access to justice before he can approach the competent court for regular anticipatory bail. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the grant of transit pre-arrest bail, submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and involve cyber crime.