Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010279622024 2025:GAU-AS:521 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3440/2024 SAJARUL HAQUE AND 3 ORS. S/O AYUB ALI, R/O VILL- PATUAKATA, P.S.-MIKIRBHETA, DIST-MORIGAON 2: NUR ALAM S/O AYUB ALI R/O VILL- PATUAKATA P.S.-MIKIRBHETA DIST-MORIGAON 3: EASIQUL ALI S/O HUSSAIN ALI R/O VILL- TATIKATA PATHAR P.S.-MOIRABARI DIST-MORIGAON 4: SARIFUDDIN ALI S/O FAKARUDDIN ALI R/O VILL AND P.O.-DANDUA P.S. AND DIST-MORIGAO VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T CHUTIA, MR. R ALI,R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in connection with Mikirbheta P. S. Case No. 138/2024, under Section 303 (2) of BNS, read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 read with Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that from the FIR itself, it is very clear that out of three vehicles, only one vehicle was intercepted by the police, from which six cattle were recovered. He further submitted that the other two co-accused have already moved an application before the learned court below seeking zimma of those cattle, claiming that they had purchased the cattle from the market. He also submitted that present petitioners are neither the owners of the vehicle nor the owners of the cattle, and thus, they are not at all involved in the alleged offence. However, they are ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the further investigation of the case, if they are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. In this context, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there are sufficient materials available against the accused/petitioners. He Page No.# 3/4 further submitted that from the statements of the witnesses, it is evident that the accused/petitioners were present in two vehicles which fled after violating the police signal. Moreover, from the available materials in the case diary, it reveals that accused/petitioners are the kingpins of the entire crime and used to transport the stolen cattle from Nagaon via Nelii, Meghalaya to Bangladesh. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may be very much required. He also submitted that earlier bail application was rejected by this Court, and considering this aspect also, he raised objections and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners. In this regard, Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the police have not yet taken any steps to arrest the owners of the other two vehicles that fled during the naka checking or to interrogate them to find out who hired the vehicles for loading the cattle. He further submitted that if there is any material in the case diary indicating the petitioners’ involvement in smuggling cattle to Bangladesh via Nelii, the police may institute another case against the petitioners. However, he stressed that there is no involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary. It is seen that the earlier bail application was rejected by this Court, and a subsequent bail petition was filed by the petitioners. However, from the case diary, it appears that they are the kingpins of the entire crime and used to export cattle to Bangladesh via Meghalaya. Furthermore, from the available materials in the case diary, it is seen that some of the witnesses have identified the petitioners as being involved in transporting cattle in the two vehicles that fled during the naka checking. Thus, considering Page No.# 4/4 the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioners may be necessary to ascertain the facts of the case. Accordingly, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners at this stage, and the same stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant