Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010245482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2648/2025 MUZAFAR ALI S/O-NABI HUSSAINR/O-VILL- DHUPAGURI,P.S.-DHING,DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM,PIN-782123 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A HASSAN, MR. D RABHA,MS. P K DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 14.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying Page No.# 2/3 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant viz., Muzafar Ali in connection with Dhing P.S. Case No.226/2025 registered under Sections 303(2) of the BNS read with Sections 5/6/13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. The gist of the allegations made against the accused/applicant in the F.I.R. lodged on 12.09.2025 is that the accused/applicant was running a slaughter house without any licence. On receipt of the F.I.R. the aforementioned case was registered against the accused/applicant. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that the slaughter house was in fact run by one Abdul Salam who was arrested and later on allowed to go on bail and the present accused/applicant was only working as a helper in the said shop and he is no way connected with the running of the slaughter house nor he had committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits on the basis of the materials available in the Case Diary that during investigation 200 kgs. of beef meat, which is banned in the State of Assam, along with two knives, daos and electronic weighing machine were recovered from the residence of the accused/applicant. Therefore, he submits that there are sufficient incriminating prima facie materials against the accused/applicant and therefore, at this stage, the accused/applicant Page No.# 3/3 should not be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. This Court has gone through the Case Diary as well as the materials available on record. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case wherein the privilege of anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused/applicant. Accordingly, the instant Bail Application is rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant