Disposed¶24

Malsawmtluanga Ralte v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC19 Jul 2026AB/1620/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transit anticipatory bail; Gauhati High Court; Justice Pranjal Das; AB/1620/2026; Section 66D IT Act; cyber crime; unauthorised transaction of Rs. 3 crore in current account; account hacking/fraud allegation; Cyber Crime PS Ghaziabad (U.P.) Case No. 0101/2026; 15-day protective bail window; bail bond Rs. 50,000 with one surety; condition to cooperate with investigation; Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 749 applied; liberty to approach jurisdictional court; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Transit anticipatory bail for a limited period of 15 days from 20-07-2026: upon arrest in Cyber Crime PS, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Case No. 0101/2026, release on a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to cooperation with investigation; liberty reserved to pursue remedies before the jurisdictional court(s).

Malsawmtluanga Ralte Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether transit anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, for a limited period, in connection with Cyber Crime PS, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Case No. 0101/2026 under section 66D IT Act, on his contention that criminal or fraudulent elements may have hacked and misused his account.

¶18

Court's answer

Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, (2024) 4 SCC 749, the Court directed that during a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the order, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Cyber Crime PS, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Case No. 0101/2026, he shall be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting authority, subject to the condition that he shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In the meantime, the applicant is at liberty to pursue his remedies before the jurisdictional court(s).

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pranjal Das), order dated 20-07-2026 in AB/1620/2026: A petitioner facing Cyber Crime PS, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Case No. 0101/2026 under section 66D IT Act, arising from a purported unauthorised transaction of Rs. 3,00,000,00/- (Rupees three crores) shown in his current account, sought transit anticipatory bail to approach the appropriate jurisdictional court. Exercising the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, (2024) 4 SCC 749, the Court directed that for 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the order, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting authority, subject to cooperation with the investigation, while remaining at liberty to pursue his remedies before the jurisdictional court(s). The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010148162026

2026:GAU-AS:9912

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB/1620/2026

¶6

MALSAWMTLUANGA RALTE S/O LAL THANZAUVA

¶7

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF A-35, BIAL-I NEAR PASTOR QUARTER, DAWRPUI VENGTHAR, AIZAWL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AIZAWL, MIZORAM, PIN796009.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AHOM GAON, P.O. AND P.S. GORCHUK, GUWAHATI781035, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 20-07-2026

¶17

Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State.

¶18

The petitioner herein is seeking transit anticipatory bail in connection with Cyber Crime PS, Ghaziabad (U.P) Case No. 0101/2026 under section 66 D IT Act.

¶19

The gist of the matter projected by the petitioner is that a purported un-authorized transaction of Rs. 3,00,000,00/- (Rupees three crores) showed in his current account, whereupon, he contacted the Bank authorities and later, he received a notice from the Cyber Crime of the aforesaid police station to appear. The petitioner contends that some criminal or fraudulent elements might have hacked and misused his account. The petitioner seeks Transit anticipatory bail for a limited period to pursue his remedies before the appropriate jurisdictional court.

¶20

Upon considering the matter and in exercise of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 – it is directed that during the period of 15 (fifteen) days from today, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforementioned case, he shall be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

authority, subject to the condition that he shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶23

In the meantime, the applicant is at liberty to pursue his remedies before the Jurisdictional court(s).

¶24

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Malsawmtluanga Ralte v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malsawmtluanga Ralte v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamthiangsang Khongsai Vs the State of Assam

Amit Kumar Rai Vs State of Assam

Satminthang Khongsai Vs the Union of India

Nekib Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mrinmoy Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Shri. Om Prakash Sah Vs the State of Nagaland and Anr.