Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010085812026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/937/2026 ELLUS ALI (MINOR) S/O FAIN UDDIN R/O ROUMARI, MAHATOLI, P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. (REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER) MD. FAIN UDDIN S/O JEHAR ALI R/O ROUMARI, MAHATOLI, P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 18.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Paramanik for the petitioner ‘X’ who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Page No.# 2/4 with prayer for transit anticipatory bail to enable him to appear before the Thana Cantt Dehradun, Cyber Police Station in connection with the “Thana Cantt Dehradun Cyber Case No. 147/2025 under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 R/W Sections 66(C)/66(D) of the IT Act. 2. Heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent State and thus no formal notice is required to be issued. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner ‘X’ is willing to appear before the concerned Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 5. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Dasarath Ray @Dipjyoti Roy Vs. The State of Assam, in connection with AB/3286/2024 wherein vide order dated 29.07.2024, it has been held that:- “6. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have submitted that Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, in the case of Mohammad Zaid vs. State of U.P. and Another (2023 SCC Online All 230) and other connected Anticipatory Bail Applications, has taken the view that a child in conflict with law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2015”) can file application for under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the same is maintainable. Relying on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammad Zaid vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra) and also taking into consideration the contrary view expressed by various High Courts, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jatin vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2024 Supreme (Online (P&H) 203, has also held that as per the Act of 2015, Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a child in conflict with law is maintainable. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the parties that the two views expressed by the Allahabad High Court and the Page No.# 3/4 High Court of Punjab and Haryana may be taken into consideration and the Reference made by the learned Single Judge may be answered. 8. Disagreeing with the above view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Kara Taling vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh (supra), another learned Single Judge of this Court in the instant Anticipatory Bail Application (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3286/2023 - Dasarath Ray @ Dipjyoti Roy vs. The State of Assam) has opined that there is no bar imposed for a juvenile, which is in conflict with law, to apply for Anticipatory Bail before he/she is apprehended for commission of a non-bailable offence. 10. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its elaborate judgment dated 29.05.2024, rendered in the case of Jatin vs. State of Punjab (2024:PHHC:076452-DB) and 33 analogous petitions, has considered the conflicting views expressed by the different High Courts on the issue of maintainability of an Anticipatory Bail Application filed by a juvenile under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It has also taken into consideration the purpose and background of the enactment of the Act of 2015 and, defining the word “apprehension”, has held that an Anticipatory Bail Application filed by a juvenile is maintainable……….. ***** ***** ***** 11. The Allahabad High Court as well as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Mohammad Zaid vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra) and Jatin vs. State of Punjab (supra), respectively, have dealt with each and every aspect of the issue and have also taken into consideration the relevant judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such as, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1982) SCC 565 and Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 787 etc. and, therefore, not much scope is available to deliberate further on the issue involved. 12. We have carefully taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the BNSS, which are corresponding to the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and dealt with by both the High Courts extensively in the above referred two judgments. We are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by both the High Courts is also applicable to the question regarding maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of the BNSS. 13. Personal liberty is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If an adult can apply for Anticipatory Bail in case he/she apprehends arrest, except in the cases where there is specific bar imposed on bail, there is no reason to deny that liberty to a child in conflict with law under the Act of 2015. Page No.# 4/4 Otherwise also, there is no express bar under the Act of 2015 for child in conflict with law to apply for Anticipatory Bail, as has been imposed by Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for an accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rightly concluded that the word “apprehend” has the same meaning as the word “arrest” has. Therefore, we are in full agreement with the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Mohammad Zaid vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra) and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Jatin vs. State of Punjab (supra). 6. The present petitioner ‘X’ is a minor and in the light of the decision of this Court in connection with Dasarath Ray @Dipjyoti Roy (Supra), and considering the entire aspect of the matter, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner within 20 days from today in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on transit bail on executing of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 7. 7. 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 for anticipatory bail on merits. 8. In terms of the above observation, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant