Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010066202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/798/2025 SRI SONAMIAH FOKIR AND ANR S/O- ISMAIL FOKIR, RESIDENT OF VILL- KAMARPARA, P.S- GOSSAIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM PIN- 7783360 2: ASHU BELAL SHEIKH @ BILAL HUSSAIN S/O AYNAL HOQUE SHEIKH R/O SERFANGUR NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON DIST.KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN-78336 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, Ms. R. R. BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 29.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. A. R. Karim, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned the learned counsel appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners namely , (1) Sri Sonamiah Fokir, and (2) Ashu Belal Sheikh @ Bilal Hussain, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Serfanguri P.S Case No.26/2024 under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 11(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 read with Section 13/14 of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that on an earlier occasion also the petitioners approached this Court and prayed for bail. However, by order dated 17.02.2025, in AB Case No. 201/2025, the prayer for bail was rejected after perusal of the case diary. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 27.11.2024 one Utsab Nath lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-charge of Serfanguri Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that during night patrolling duty at Serfanguri Police Station area the police team noticed one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-DS- 2580 and saw three unidentified person abandoning the vehicle and fleeing from the scene. Thereafter, on arrival of other police staff at the spot, two stolen cows and the vehicles was seized there from. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, as the father of the petitioner No.1 is a very aged person and is suffering from ailments, the said medical urgency may be treated as a new ground for seeking Page No.# 3/4 anticipatory bail by the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioners are neither the owners of the vehicle nor in any manner involved in the offence against them. Hence, they may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Serfanguri P.S Case No.26/2024 and has submitted that the grounds for approaching this Court for the second time when their earlier bail petition was rejected, are not sufficient so as to justify giving a favourable order under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 to the present petitioners. 7. He submits that both the petitioners are the main accused in this case and there are sufficient incriminating materials against both of them. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available in the case diary. 9. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against both the petitioners and on that ground only, their earlier bail application was rejected. The ground that the father of petitioner No.1 is ill is apparently not applicable to petitioner No. 2 and therefore, he does not have any fresh ground to move this application. 10. As regards as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the only medical document, which has been annexed in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner seeking bail in this case is a prescription of Rnb Sdch Gossaigaon of one Mr. Ismail Fokir, who is alleged to be the father of the petitioner No. 1. 11. The same medical document does not indicate as to what ailment the father of the petitioner No. 1 is suffering from and the same in the considered opinion of the Court is not sufficient to give a lenient view in respect of petitioner No. 1 when there are sufficient materials in the case diary against Page No.# 4/4 him. 12. This Court is of considered opinion that no sufficient grounds for allowing the petitioners to go on anticipatory bail when their earlier bail application was dismissed. We are not finding sufficient incriminating materials against them. 13. The bail for grant of anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant