Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15656 (GAU)

SAHIDUL ISLAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./2202/2025 · 2025-07-09

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2202/2025 SAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- SAYED ALI, R/O- BARTALOWA, P.S- KAJALGAON, DIST- CHIRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR I U CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sahidul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 02.07.2025 (for last 8 days) in connection with Kajalgaon P.S. Case No. 107/2025 under Section 325 of BNS read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Page No.# 2/3 Preservation Act, 2021 and Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.07.2025 one Jagadish Ch. Ray, LNK of Police of Kajalgaon Police Station had lodged an FIR alleging that credible information was received regarding illegal sale of beef meat in certain hotel at Bartalowa under Kajalgaon Police Station and accordingly a team of Police reached Maa Baba Ashirwad Hotel and recovered 500 grams of suspected beef meat from the kitchen of the said hotel. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the hotel and the hotel belongs to his brother-in- law, however, the police could not apprehend the brother-in-law and arrested the present petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspected beef meat has already seized and considering the period of detention, further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 6. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for calling of the case diary as the fact as to whether the petitioner is the actual owner of the hotel from where the suspected beef meat was seized would be revealed only from the case diary. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. On perusal of the forwarding report of the petitioner after his arrest, it appears that only 500 grams cooked meat suspected to be of beef was recovered from the hotel. It also appears that the petitioner has already been Page No.# 3/3 detained behind the bars for last 8 days and considering the fact that the suspected meat has already been seized and also considering the period of detention, this Court is of considered opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Kajalgaon P.S. Case No. 107/2025, if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation. 9. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kajalgaon, Chirang with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant