Transit Anticipatory Bail in Cyber Fraud Cases: What Priya Indoria Means When the FIR Is in Another State

Why cyber fraud makes this a routine problem
Cyber fraud is borderless by nature. The victim, the bank account where money lands, and the account holder are often in three different states. FIRs under S. 318(4) BNS (cheating), often with S. 319 and S. 61(2) BNS, and S. 66C and 66D of the IT Act, are registered where the complainant lives. Police then pursue account holders in other states. Under S. 48 CrPC (the police power to pursue an accused anywhere in India), an arrest outside the state is followed by a transit remand. An accused who waits for that has no real remedy.
What the Supreme Court held

• Jurisdiction. The words "the High Court or the Court of Session" in S. 438 CrPC are not limited to the court where the FIR is lodged. The word "the" does not restrict it (paras 44-46).
• Limited relief. The relief is limited or transit anticipatory bail, an interim protection for a fixed period. Full anticipatory bail must be sought from the court that has jurisdiction where the FIR is registered (paras 39, 45).
• Constitutional basis. The Court rested this on personal liberty (Art. 21), equality (Art. 14) and access to justice (paras 34, 45).
• Overruled. Syed Zafrul Hassan (Patna) and Sadhan Chandra Kolay (Calcutta) were set aside to the extent they denied jurisdiction altogether (para 38).

Conditions the court will look at (para 36)

1. Notice. Notice to the investigating officer and Public Prosecutor seized of the FIR on the first date, though the court may grant interim protection without it in an appropriate case.
2. Reasons. The order must record why the applicant apprehends inter-state arrest and what effect the protection will have on the investigation.
3. No state exclusion. The state where the FIR is registered must not have excluded the offence from anticipatory bail by a State amendment.
4. Inability to approach the competent court. The applicant must explain why he cannot approach that court. Grounds named by the Court are a reasonable and immediate threat to life or liberty, arbitrariness, or medical status or disability.

Two more limits apply. The power is for exceptional and compelling circumstances (para 37). And there must be a territorial link, such as residence, occupation, work or profession. An accused cannot travel to another state just to seek bail (para 40).
How High Courts have applied it in cyber fraud cases

• Punjab and Haryana High Court (CRM-M-901 of 2024): 15 days' transit bail to an accused in a Telegram-based scam FIR registered at Hyderabad under S. 66C and 66D IT Act and IPC 419/420, so he could join the investigation and apply to the competent court.
• Telangana High Court: 15 days' interim transit bail in a ₹3.16 crore cyber fraud FIR registered at Cyber Crime, Panchkula. The Court treated it as protective relief and not a decision on anticipatory bail on merits.
• Kerala High Court: three weeks' transit bail in a UP cyber crime case (Cyber Crime Police Station, Etah), on the strength of a notice under S. 35(3) BNSS and medical documents supporting the apprehension.
• Gauhati High Court: 14 days' interim transit protection in an FIR at a Delhi cyber police station, with a direction to appear before the investigating agency.

The pattern is consistent. Courts give a short window, usually two to four weeks, and require cooperation with the investigation.
The position after BNSS
S. 438 CrPC is now S. 482 BNSS, in force from 1 July 2024. Several High Courts have observed that S. 482 drops the list of guiding factors in S. 438(1) and the notice provisions of S. 438(1A) and (1B). That widens judicial discretion. Transit bail itself is a creation of Priya Indoria and not of the statutory text, and High Courts continue to apply it to FIRs under the BNS. Two points to check each time: how the FIR state's own amendments sit with S. 482 BNSS, and whether the court you approach insists on notice to the IO and Public Prosecutor.
A practical checklist for the applicant

• Put residence or work proof on record to establish the territorial link.
• State the specific reason for apprehending arrest: a notice, a police visit, a freeze on the bank account, or a call from the IO.
• Explain why you cannot approach the competent court immediately. Medical papers, distance and the threat of immediate arrest help here.
• Offer to appear before the IO and join the investigation. Courts have denied relief to applicants who were absconding or refused to cooperate.
• Ask only for limited protection, and give an undertaking to move the competent court within the period granted.
• Disclose other FIRs for the same incident. Priya Indoria left open the position on multiple FIRs (para 47).

What transit bail does not do
It is not full anticipatory bail, and the competent court is not bound to extend it. It does not stop the police from investigating or freezing accounts. It is not a licence to choose a convenient forum. In cyber fraud matters, courts also weigh the fact that money trails often justify custodial interrogation, so a clear case for protection and a willingness to cooperate matter more than the legal point alone.
Conclusion
Priya Indoria gives a person facing a cyber fraud FIR in another state a legal route to short-term protection from their home court, and the competent court can then decide the regular plea. The relief is narrow, time-bound and condition-heavy, so the application needs to be built carefully.
This post is general information, not legal advice. Confirm the reporter citation and the position in the relevant High Court before relying on any case mentioned here.
Citation: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 INSC 1008, paras 35-46.

← Back to all blogs