Point to something concrete: a notice under S. 35(3) BNSS, a police visit, a call from the investigating officer. Vague fear does not work (Priya Indoria, para 36; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, (1980) 2 SCC 565). The Kerala High Court granted three weeks' transit bail in Vincy Peter v. State of Kerala to a woman who had a notice to appear before the Etah (UP) cyber crime police.
Para 36(iv) names a threat to liberty, arbitrariness, or medical status. In Vincy Peter, a medical discharge card did real work. Attach documents and do not just narrate the problem.
Show residence or work with proof (para 40). The Delhi High Court in Honey Preet Insan (2017 SCC OnLine Del 10690), discussed in Priya Indoria at para 17, refused relief where the Delhi address looked like a camouflage and the applicant was at large. Courts do notice that.
This is what almost every grant in cyber matters has in common. The Punjab and Haryana High Court (CRM-M-901 of 2024) gave 15 days so the accused could join a Hyderabad investigation in a Telegram-scam FIR. The Gauhati High Court gave 14 days with a direction to appear before the Delhi cyber police. The Telangana High Court gave 15 days in a ₹3.16 crore fraud with an FIR at Panchkula. In each case the protection came with a duty to cooperate.
Ask only for time-bound protection and undertake to move the competent court within it. The Telangana High Court treated transit bail as protective relief and not a decision on merits. The Allahabad High Court in Amita Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine All 463 (quoted in Priya Indoria), called it a temporary relief so that regular bail can be sought where the FIR lies.
A word of caution
Grounds help, but they do not guarantee protection. Courts weigh the amount involved and the trail of money, and an applicant who evades police will not get relief.
General information, not legal advice.
Get professional legal guidance from Advocate Krishna Pandey for your legal matter.
Book Consultation Call Now