The Karnataka High Court has affirmed the principle that an accused residing outside the jurisdiction of a cybercrime investigation must be granted reasonable transit protection to approach the proper forum. This order provides critical procedural safeguards for individuals facing extraterritorial prosecution under modern digital statutes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bhavya S, a resident of Bengaluru, Karnataka, is named as an accused in FIR No. 22/2025 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The case pertains to alleged offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner has no residential, professional, or transactional connection to Uttar Pradesh and seeks protection from arbitrary arrest while she prepares to approach the jurisdictional court.
Key Facts
- The petitioner resides at 879, 10th Cross, Weavers Colony, BG Road, Gottigere, Anekal, Bengaluru-560083
- The FIR was registered on an unknown date in 2025 by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
- The alleged offences relate to digital impersonation and fraudulent communication under Section 66D of the IT Act and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- The petitioner has not been arrested or summoned by the Uttar Pradesh authorities as of the date of filing
- The petitioner is not a resident, worker, or party to any transaction in Uttar Pradesh
Procedural History
- Date of FIR registration: 2025 (exact date not specified in judgment)
- Date of filing of petition: Prior to 07.05.2026
- 07.05.2026: Criminal Petition No. 6914 of 2026 heard before the Karnataka High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transit anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (read with Section 482 BNSS) to prevent arrest by the Uttar Pradesh police for a limited period, allowing her to approach the jurisdictional court in Mathura and seek regular anticipatory bail.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court in one jurisdiction may grant transit anticipatory bail to an accused facing prosecution in another state, where the accused has no local connection and requires time to approach the proper forum.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner, being a non-resident of Uttar Pradesh, faces undue hardship in immediately appearing before the Mathura court. Granting transit bail is a procedural necessity to uphold Article 21 rights and ensure access to justice. Reliance was placed on the principle that anticipatory bail is not confined by territorial boundaries when the accused is outside the jurisdiction of the investigating agency.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the petition. The Public Prosecutor acknowledged the petitioner’s residence in Karnataka and conceded that granting a limited period of protection would facilitate due process without compromising investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court recognized that the petitioner is not a resident of Uttar Pradesh and has no nexus with the alleged offence’s locus. The Court emphasized that the purpose of anticipatory bail is not merely to prevent arrest, but to ensure that the accused is not subjected to arbitrary detention without opportunity to seek lawful protection.
"Breathing time is to be allowed for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court and obtain necessary orders."
The Court held that denying transit protection would effectively deny the petitioner meaningful access to justice, especially in cybercrime cases where jurisdictional boundaries are often blurred and accused persons may be located far from the investigating station. The Court noted that such interim relief is consistent with the spirit of Section 438 CrPC and the broader constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court further observed that the relief sought was neither an extension of regular anticipatory bail nor a substitute for it, but a temporary procedural safeguard to enable the petitioner to approach the correct forum.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner shall not be arrested by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh for a period of 30 days from 07.05.2026, provided she applies for regular anticipatory bail before the jurisdictional court within that period. If no application is made by 08.06.2026, this order shall cease to operate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transit Bail Is a Procedural Right in Inter-State Cyber Cases
- Practitioners may now seek transit anticipatory bail for clients facing cybercrime charges in distant jurisdictions
- The burden shifts to the investigating agency to justify why immediate arrest is necessary when the accused is clearly outside the jurisdiction
- Courts must treat transit bail as a necessary component of Article 21, not a discretionary favor
Jurisdictional Distance Cannot Be Ignored
- A person’s place of residence is a material factor in determining the necessity of immediate arrest
- In digital offences, where evidence is often remote and accused may be anywhere, courts must facilitate access to justice rather than impose logistical barriers
- This precedent applies equally to cases under BNSS, IT Act, and other cyber-related statutes
Time-Bound Protection Is Essential
- Any transit bail must have a clear expiry date to prevent indefinite immunity
- The 30-day window here sets a reasonable benchmark for similar applications
- Failure to approach the jurisdictional court within the period automatically terminates protection
