Dipen Chetia Phukon vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to interim protection in the form of transit bail. The Court reasoned that there is a serious apprehension of arrest of the petitioner, especially since he had defaulted in appearing before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated period. The Court also considered the logistical challenge of the petitioner having to travel to Bangalore to appear before the Investigating Officer. Citing the principles laid down in Priya Indoria, the Court found this to be a fit case to exercise its discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed period and direct the petitioner to make an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that denying transit anticipatory bail would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be released on transit bail for 21 days upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the condition that he appears before the Investigating Officer within those 21 days. The Court clarified that this interim protection is solely to enable the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for anticipatory bail on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Dipen Chetia Phukon, sought pre-arrest bail for four weeks under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This was in connection with CENPS Crime No. 241/2026, registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, South Division, Bangalore City, under Sections 66(C)/66(D) of the IT Act and various sections of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner received a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on October 6, 2026, directing him to appear before the Investigating Officer within three days. The petitioner stated that the account involved in the case belongs to his proprietorship, M/s Himalaya Supply, with GST Registration No. 18AMUPC0070C1ZD. He explained that he received approximately Rs. 52,00,000/- in his bank account as an advance for a coal business transaction, but was later compelled to return the money and hand over his ATM card and phone, from which the amount was withdrawn. He had lodged an Ejahar at Noonmati Police Station on September 24, 2026, after his bank account was frozen.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail to enable him to approach the jurisdictional High Court for anticipatory bail, considering his apprehension of arrest upon appearing before the Investigating Officer in Bangalore? (Section 482, BNSS, 2023 and principles of transit anticipatory bail as laid down in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he received the notice late and could not appear within the stipulated period. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer but apprehends arrest. He relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria to support his claim for transit anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to prevent irremediable prejudice. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly submitted that transit bail may be granted for a limited period, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.