04.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. No representation on behalf of the Union of India.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Solimuddin Ali, who is apprehending arrest in connection with CEN P.S. Cr. No.248/2024, registered under Section 66C / 66D I.T. Act, R/W-419/420 of IPC .

3. The accused/petitioner begs to state that on 05-07-2024, the informant namely Lapa Mandal lodged a written FIR before the CEN Police Station, Bangaluru, wherein he inter-alia alleged that On 26/04/2024 he has received a link on his Face book to join in STOCK BROKING GROUP for stock marked tips and trading. After clicking it took him to a group namely GFSL Securities official Stock x 28, this group gives tips on purchasing stocks and selling. Later, https://app.tragfslent.com was shared to download the App and he had downloaded the App on 15/6/2024 and he was asked to link his bank account to the App. he had linked his SBI Bank Account No. 39930219142 and transferred 5000/-Rs which was transferred to A/C No 20100027192566 of Bandhan Bank. After, trading in stocks the profit was deposited in the account on 18/6/2024. Later, for investing in stocks on 23/6/2024 he transferred 3,50,000/-Rs to Indus Bank A/c- 201029683027, on 28/06/2024 again 3,50,000/-Rs from his SBI Bank Page No.# 3/5 A/c 39930219142. The App has shown the profit of 7,87,567/-Rs. Later on, he wanted to withdraw the total amount to his bank account and placed a request but it was not happening. When he contacted the accused, he blocked his App and cheated him and hence the case.

4. The petitioner has received a notice dated 24.04.2025 from the I/O and apprehends that he may be arrested immediately upon his arrival in Bangaluru in response to the aforesaid notice. Hence, this case for transit bail.

5. In the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Others 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:-

c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extra-territorial limited anticipatory bail.

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 Page No.# 4/5 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.

6. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating therein that he has reasonable apprehension as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inasmuch as he has never been outside the State of Assam and it would be quite impossible for him to have access to justice, if he is forced to avail the remedy before the jurisdictional Court at Karnataka.

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 Karnataka 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. 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 Karnataka. 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.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner within 14 days from today in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on transit bail on executing of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two Page No.# 5/5 sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

10. 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.

11. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant