Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010025942026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/283/2026 ANIL CHANDRA NATH S/O LATE PRIYA RAM NATH, R/O VILL. NABHETI, WARD NO 9, P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782105 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SWAPNA BHARALI W/O KAMALESWAR BHARALI R/O VILL. DOLOICHUBA P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. S H SAIKIA,MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. Z ISLAM(R2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 12.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents. 2. This application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, Sri Anil Chandra Nath, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Morigaon P.S. case No. 352/2024 under Sections 75(2)/78(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 10/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that this is the fourth time, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. His earlier three applications were rejected after perusal of the case diary. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that the mother of the victim girl had lodged an FIR on 26.12.2024, before the Officer-In- Charge of Morigaon Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that her daughter is a student of Class-X of Doloichuba High School, where the petitioner is working as the Headmaster. It is alleged that about four months prior to the lodging of the FIR, the daughter of the informant was sexually harassed in various ways. Page No.# 3/6 5. It is further stated that out of shame, the victim did not disclose the matter to anybody else. It is further stated in the FIR that the petitioner has not only subjected the daughter of the informant to sexual harassment, but he is doing so with other students also. 6. Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail on a new ground which was not considered by the Court on earlier occasions. He submits that since the offence alleged against the petitioner entails punishment of imprisonment not more than seven years, it was incumbent on the investigating agency to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner. 7. In support of his submission, he has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation” (2026 INSC 115). 8. He further submits that as per the order dated 15.05.2023 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Assam, Home and Political Department in pursuant to the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Amandeep Singh Johar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another”, the procedure of serving notice under Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been laid down. He submits that the same procedure would be applicable in case of serving notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 as both are provisions in pari meteria. 9. He submits that as per the procedure laid down by the aforesaid judgment as well as notified by the aforesaid order, the original copy Page No.# 4/6 of the notice is to be served on the accused suspect and a carbon copy is to be retained by the Investigating Officer which can be shown to the concerned Magistrate as and when required. 10. He submits that in the instant case, though the prosecution side has claimed that the notice was served on the wife of the present petitioner, however, no such original or even a copy of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023 was ever served on the wife of the petitioner. 11. Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the wife of the petitioner was called to the police station for obtaining her signature on the purported notice under Section 35(3) which is also prohibited by law. 12. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. He submits that as there is a violation of mandatory provisions of law, the petitioner is entitled to get protection under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in this case. 13. Also heard Mr. Z. Islam, the learned counsel for the informant who submits that he has been instructed by his client not to oppose the grant of bail. 14. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. K. Das has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that on earlier three occasions, the Court had rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, considering the seriousness of the offence. He submits that the petitioner, being a Headmaster of a school has subjected more than nine girl students Page No.# 5/6 to sexual assault and the investigation is still going on. 15. He further submits that the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023 was served on the wife of the petitioner and her signatures were also obtained on the same notice. He has produced the case diary of Morigaon P.S. case No. 352/2024, where an endorsement to that effect has also been made by the Investigating Officer. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on the record. I have also perused the case diary. 17. The main contention of the petitioner in the instant anticipatory bail application is that he was not served with the notice under section 35(3) of the BNSS which has to be mandatorily served in case of offence entailing punishment of less than seven years. 18. However, on perusal of the case diary it appears that 19.01.2025 itself the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 for appearance of the present petitioner before the Investigating Officer on 25.01.2025 at 10.00 am. It also appears that the said notice was served to the wife of the present petitioner, namely, Smti Nilakshi Devi. It also appears that on perusal of the case diary that an endorsement to that effect has also been made in the case diary, as such the plea that no such notice was issued to the present petitioner remaining unsubstantiated. 19. It also appears that during the investigation, it has been revealed that apart from the present victim some other girl students of the school have also implicated the present petitioner of sexually Page No.# 6/6 harassing them as well as the fact that the petitioner has failed to show any new ground for moving the instant bail application, when on earlier three occasion his application for bail was dismissed after perusal of the case diary. This Court, however, finds no justification in allowing this anticipatory bail application. 20. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail application is rejected and this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. 21. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant