Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010032212026 2026:GAU-AS:6122 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/364/2026 BISHWAJEET DAS @ BISHU S/O JAGDISH DAS RESIDENT OF HIJIGURI RABINDRA NAGAR HIJIGURI GAON SABJIBARI PS TINSUKIA DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:KARUNA DAS WIFE OF PRANKRISHNA DAS RESIDENT OF GUIJAN LG ROAD PS TINSUKIA DIST TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR. N ALI,MR A HOSSAIN,MRS. K H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS F BEGUM(R2),MR. S BANIK(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 05-05-2026 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Mr. S. Banik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel Page No.# 2/3 appears for the respondent No. 2/informant. By the earlier Order dated 02.04.2026, the Case Diary was called for. The same has been received and perused. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 12/2026 under Section 65(2) of the BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR have arisen out of an enmity between the complainant and the employer of the accused herein. He has submitted that since the accused herein was appointed in place of the complainant’s husband, as a revenge, this FIR has been lodged. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that in view of the inclusions of provisions of Section 65(2) of the BNS, an anticipatory bail petition at this stage is not maintainable in law because of the provisions of Section 482(4) of the BNSS, 2023. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary and this Court has perused the same. Mr. S. Banik, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in view of the nature of allegations as reflected in the FIR, the grant of an anticipatory bail might be to the detriment of the investigation being conducted. Having regard to the contents revealed in the Case Diary, the statement of the victim as available, and the submissions made by the learned counsels for Page No.# 3/3 the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the grant of an anticipatory bail at this juncture is not called for. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Petition is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant