Judicial Discretion in Transit Bail: A Lucknow Perspective on Cyber Matters

In Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 INSC 1008, the Supreme Court held that a Court of Session or High Court may grant limited anticipatory bail for an FIR registered outside its territory (paras 36, 44-46). Notice that the Court said "may". The relief is not a right of the applicant. It sits with the judge, who must be satisfied on the facts.
How the Court guides that discretion:

1. Exceptional circumstances only. Para 37 says the power should be used where refusing protection would cause irreparable prejudice to the applicant.
2. Notice, but with flexibility. The investigating officer and Public Prosecutor should be noticed, yet the court may grant interim protection without notice in an appropriate case (para 36(i)).
3. Reasons on record. The judge must record why inter-state arrest is apprehended and how the protection affects the investigation (para 36(ii)).
4. Seriousness of the apprehension. The court weighs how real and serious the fear of arrest is (para 45).
5. Forum shopping. Judges must check for a genuine territorial link, such as residence or work, and the reason for not going to the competent court (para 40).

What this means in a cyber fraud case:
Cyber matters carry a large amount of money, bank freezes and digital trails, so courts tend to be cautious. The Priya Indoria factors play out like this in practice:

• A Lucknow resident with an address, employment or family on record has an easier case than someone who only appears to have come to Lucknow for the bail.
• A notice under S. 35(3) BNSS, a police call or a frozen account is concrete material. General fear is not.
• Offering to join the investigation is usually what makes a court comfortable. High Courts granting transit bail in cyber cases have typically given two to four weeks and required the accused to appear before the investigating agency.
• Evasion counts against you. In Honey Preet Insan (discussed in Priya Indoria, para 18(c)), relief was refused partly because the applicant was at large.

A reminder about UP
The Supreme Court noted in para 32 that UP has its own history of amendments to S. 438 CrPC. The conditions in para 36(iii) also require that the state where the FIR is registered has not excluded the offence from anticipatory bail. Check this for the FIR state, and check how it sits with S. 482 BNSS, which replaced S. 438 from 1 July 2024.
The takeaway
Discretion cuts both ways. Judges are free to protect, and they are equally free to refuse a thinly built plea. Bring your documents, state your reasons plainly, and commit to cooperating. Then move the competent court within the protection period.
General information, not legal advice. Confirm the position with the latest orders before filing.

← Back to all blogs