Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010207792026 2026:GAU-AS:14480 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2325/2026 SHRI KOILASH MIZAR ALIAS KAILASH MIZAR SON OF LATE GOPAL MIZAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BOGIJULI PATHAR POST OFFICE BEDETI PIN 784179 POLICE STATION BEHALI DISTRICT BISWANATH ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the Page No.# 2/5 applicant, namely, Shri Koilash Mizar @ Kailash Mizar, who has been apprehending his arrest in connection with Behali P.S. Case No. 118/2026, registered under Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(u)/3(1)(w)(i)/3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (amended in 2015), for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by the informant Smti ‘X’ (name withheld) on 12.09.2026. 4. The essence of allegation against the applicant in the FIR, dated 12.09.2026, is that on 30.08.2026, she lodged one ejahar against the applicant, but she has asked not to register any case against him, as she wanted to have a discussion with him, and that on 09.09.2026, when the applicant appeared at Bihali police station, then she asked him about her marriage with him and then, he informed her that he would not marry her as she belonged to a different caste. He also insulted her for belonging to a different caste and also insulted her by saying that her mother belonged to the Missing community and her father belonged to the Karbi community. 5. Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a police personnel and the informant herein has also lodged another FIR against the applicant, wherein, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail; and that from a perusal of the allegations in the FIR, it cannot be said that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(u)/3(1)(w)(i)/3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, (amended in 2015), are made out against the applicant and as such, he submits that this Page No.# 3/5 application is maintainable. He also submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and will appear before the I.O. as and when directed and therefore, he has contended to allow this application. 5.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Bordoloi has referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 420 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036, and submits that the applicant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned APP, submits that this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is not at all maintainable, as a prima-facie case has been made out against the present applicant under Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1) (u)/3(1)(w)(i)/3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, (amended in 2015). He also submits that the allegations made in the FIR are clear enough to show that the victim/informant, who belongs to an SC/ST community, was insulted at the police station by the applicant herein, which is a public place. 7. Mr. Barthakur further submits that though, in the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, there is no clear indication as to where the informant was insulted, yet, the FIR is clear enough to show the complicity of the applicant and as such, he has contended to dismiss this application. 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed Page No.# 4/5 on record, and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Barthakur, learned APP. 9. The question to be addressed first is whether this application is maintainable or not. In the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an application for pre-arrest bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, (amended in 2015), is maintainable only when no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. 10. In the case in hand, having perused the allegations made in the FIR, along with the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it cannot be said that any offence under Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(u)/3(1)(w) (i)/3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, (amended in 2015) has been made out against the present applicant. 11. Though, by referring to 2 (two) decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tala (Supra) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra), Mr. Bordoloi submits that the applicant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, yet, this Court is afraid that the said decisions would not come to the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant, as it has categorically been held in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra), that if a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant, then the application for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. 12. In the result, this Court is of the considered view that this application for Page No.# 5/5 pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. And accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. 13. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant