Dipen Chatia 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. It reasoned that there was a serious apprehension of arrest as the petitioner had defaulted in appearing before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated seven days. The Court noted that the notice was issued by a Cyber Crime Police Station in Bangalore, requiring the petitioner to travel there. Considering the need to facilitate the petitioner's appearance before the Investigating Officer and to prevent irremediable and irreversible prejudice, the Court exercised its discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed period. The Court dispensed with notice to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, to avoid further delay. The ratio decidendi is that transit anticipatory bail should be granted in exceptional and compelling circumstances where denying such bail would cause irremediable prejudice, enabling the applicant to approach the competent court for anticipatory bail on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Dipen Chatia Phukon, sought pre-arrest bail for four weeks under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This was in connection with FIR/Case No. 415/2026, registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, South Division, Bangalore City, under Section 66(D) of the IT Act and Sections 318(4)/319(2) 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 seven days. The petitioner's GST-registered proprietorship, M/s Himalaya Supply, was linked to an account where approximately ₹52 lakh was deposited and subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner alleged being compelled to hand over his ATM card and phone after a coal business transaction in Ghaziabad.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to transit anticipatory bail to enable him to appear before the Investigating Officer in Bangalore and seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional High Court, considering his apprehension of arrest due to a delayed appearance after receiving notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he received the notice late (October 6, 2026) and could not appear within the stipulated seven days. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. for the principles governing transit anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for interim protection to avoid irremediable prejudice. Revenue/State's arguments: The 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.