Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010265822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3297/2024 RAFIUL HUSSAIN BHUYAN AND ANR. S/O LATE RAFIQUL HUSSAIN BHUYAN, R/O BHUYAN PATTY P.S. NAHARKATIA, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM PIN-786610 2: SAFIUL ISLAM BHUYAN S/O RAFIUL HUSSAIN BHUYAN R/O BHUYAN PATTY P.S. NAHARKATIA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78661 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, MR A H SARKAR,MR A K AZAD,P ADHIKARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Naharkatia P.S. Case No. 72/2024, under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/325/61(2) of the B.N.S., this application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., is preferred by applicants namely, Rafiul Hussain Bhuyan and Safiul Islam Bhuyan for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one F.I.R., lodged by one Gakul Bora, on 04.10.2024. The essence of allegation in the F.I.R. against the applicants is that on the intervening night of 04.10.2024, at about 05:30 a.m., the informant has found that four cows were slaughtered in his house and during search, the remains of four cows were recovered. Thereafter, it came to know that they have stolen the cows and slaughtered the same and supplied the meat. 4. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the F.I.R. Mr. Uddin further submits that the step brother of the applicant No. 1 had falsely lodged the case against them, as there was a land dispute between them and for the same, the wife of the applicant No. 1 had also lodged one F.I.R. on 04.10.2024. Mr. Uddin further submits that there is also discrepancy in the first seizure list and the second seizure list, which were prepared on the same day. Mr. Uddin also submits that the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, by producing the case diary before this court, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicants. Mr. Goswami further submits that the investigation is still going on and the applicants have been absconding and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have Page No.# 3/3 carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this court with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. The case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicants. It further appears that the investigation is still going on and the applicants have been absconding. 8. In view of the materials so far collected in the case diary, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted and therefore, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicants and therefore, the same is dismissed. 9. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant