Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030007202026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/6/2026 Sh. C.L Dinga S/o Thankulha, Chandmari, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Maharastra and Anr. Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr T J Lalnuntluanga Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 24.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. J. Lalnuntluanga, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Mizoram. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting temporary or transit pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Page No.# 2/7 C.L. Dinga, in connection with the R.C.C No. 72/2025, dated 13.08.2025, issued by Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. & JMFC Rajura. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come to know only on 08.09.2026 that a private complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 72/2025 titled “The State of Maharashtra Through SDFO, Rajura Vs Ajit Siyalal Pardhi & Ors” under Sections 9, 39(3), 44, 48A, 49, 49B, 50, 51 of the Wild LIfe (Protection) Act, 1972 is pending before the Court of Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. & JMFC, Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur, Maharashtra, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused as “C.L. Dinga of Isol, Mizoram”. The learned Trial Court has issued a non-bailable warrant and thereafter a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS vide order dated 13.08.2026 directing the petitioner to appear on 01.10.2026. He has submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Aizawl, Mizoram and at present is residing at Aizawl only. He has never resided at any place called “ISOL” as mentioned in the complaint, and the spelling of the place itself is not properly mentioned. He has submitted that the petitioner is a simple local person and was working as a daily manual labourer for his family's livelihood. Due to his advanced age of about 86 years and fragile bodily condition, he is no longer able to work and is presently residing at Aizawl and is fully dependent on his children, who are looking after and maintaining him. The petitioner has never travelled outside the State of Mizoram and has been residing only at Aizawl for his entire life. The petitioner has absolutely no connection with accused Ajit Siyalal Pardhi and has Page No.# 3/7 never visited Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur, Maharashtra, in his life. The petitioner has no knowledge about the Wild Life (Protection) Act or the sections alleged against him. The petitioner states that his name may have been implicated due to mistaken identity, similarity of name or false information furnished by someone. Be that as it may, since a case has been registered against him and a Warrant of Arrest and Proclamation has been issued, the petitioner has approached this Court for protection of his personal liberty only to comply with the law and to enable him to appear before the Ld. Trial Court at Rajura as per procedure. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has never been involved in any case before. He has submitted that although Sections 39, 44, 48A, 49, 49B are punishable up to 3 years and are bailable, the main penal section invoked is Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. As per Section 51(1), if hunting relates to a Schedule-I animal, punishment is not less than 3 years extending up to 7 years with a fine not less than Rs. 25,000/-. As per the First Schedule of BNSS, any offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years and upwards but less than 7 years is classified as Non-Bailable and Cognizable. It is settled law that if even one section is non-bailable, the whole case is to be treated as non-bailable for the purpose of Sec. 482 BNSS. Hence, the present application under Sec. 482 BNSS is maintainable. 4. The learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in the event he appears before the learned Court where the Page No.# 4/7 Trial is pending. Accordingly, he has submitted that the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of interim transit bail to enable him to pursue such remedies as may be available in law before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that notice to the investigating authority is required as per the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka, and Others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749, where the Apex Court has held as follows: 93.1. Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail. 93.2. The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation. 93.3 The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Section 438 of CrPC. 93.4 The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be - Page No.# 5/7 a) a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered; b) the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness; c) the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extra-territorial limited anticipatory bail. 94. It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in which an order of extra-territorial anticipatory bail may be imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant. We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only, which means where denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant. The Court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit, may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, she has prayed that the interim relief to the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P. representing the State of Mizoram. 8. Notice to the I/O and the Public Prosecutor, who are seized of the investigation, can be dispensed with in the present case, as in the opinion of Page No.# 6/7 this Court, resorting to the same at this stage is likely to cause further delay in the process before the learned Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. & JMFC Rajura, as the said Court is in distant Maharashtra. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382, it has been held as follows: 30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant. 9. The petitioner has asserted that he had never received any summons or other communications for participating in the proceedings and further, he is aged about 86 years, dependent on his children for existence. He is also suffering from different ailments. Therefore, I find the present case to be an appropriate one to exercise the discretion to grant interim protection for a fixed Page No.# 7/7 period and to direct the petitioner to make an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as otherwise, there is a scope for causing irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, C.L. Dinga, within 45 days from today in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on transit bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 11. It is made clear that the present interim protection in the form of transit bail has been granted to the petitioner only in order to enable him to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to pray for and avail appropriate remedy. 12. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant