Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010056612025 2025:GAU-AS:4490 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/669/2025 TAJAL ISLAM AND ANR S/O KABIL ALI VILL- NO. 2 ILSAMPUR P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2: MD ROFIKUL HAQUE S/O ASHRAF ALI VILL-MOIDAMIA P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA, MR N ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 09.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Bihpuria P. S. Case No.30/2025, under Sections 331(4)/305(b)/317(4)/111/313 of BNS read with Section 11(a)(d)(e) of the Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, read with Section 13(1) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 3. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Purkayastha, that the present petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. The only allegation brought against him is that he is associated with the offence, but there is no material available against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is an Imam by profession and is not at all involved in such activities. However, he submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the further investigation of the case if he is granted the privilege of bail. 5. In this context, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused/petitioner, and all the stolen cattle were kept at the petitioner’s house, from where they were transported to another location. Hence, the petitioner is a habitual offender, and he submits that custodial interrogation is required for the interest of the investigation. He raised objections, submitting that this is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail Page No.# 3/3 to the accused/petitioner. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned advocates of both sides and perusing the case diary, it is seen that sufficient material has already been collected by the IO against the petitioner. He is the kingpin of the entire crime, having engaged others in stealing cattle, and the entire crime was committed under his leadership. In view of this, I find that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner may be necessary to unearth the facts of the case. Accordingly, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the accused/petitioner at this stage, and the same stands rejected. 7. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 8. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant