Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And Anr on 4 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010133872025
2025:GAU-AS:10029
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1401/2025
SOLIMUDDIN ALI
S/O SOWAB ALI
R/O NO. 2 JUGIPARA PATHAR
P.S. NAGARBERA
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
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:-
93.1. Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and
public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the
hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim
anticipatory bail.
93.2. The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the
applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited
anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation.
93.3 The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not
exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to
Section 438 of CrPC.
93.4 The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability
to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be –
a) a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the
jurisdiction where the FIR is registered;
b). the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to
arbitrariness;
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