HABIBUR RAHMAN @ HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
AB/526/2026 · 2026-04-22
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4712 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4712 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010044392026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/526/2026 HABIBUR RAHMAN @ HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR SON OF LATE MUKUT ALI LASKAR RESIDENT OF MASJID ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A H LASKAR, MR. A T H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 23.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant
Page No.# 2/3 of pre-arrest bail in connection Duliajan Police Station Case No. 12/2026 u/s 325, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 r/w Section 11(1)(a) of the Cruelty to Animals Act r/w Section 13 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. 3. The allegations reference stated is that the present petitioner was involved in the business of selling beef along with the co-accused person and that on 03.02.2026, the certain quantity of suspected beef was recovered from the house of co-accused namely Mohammad Taz Uddin. The FSL report in respect of the seized suspected beef is yet to be received. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the statement of the accused/petitioner before the I.O, which is self-implicatory in nature and has also placed the statements of the other co-accused, available in the Case Diary. 5. From the above, it appears that the case against the present petitioner is based on the statements of co-accused persons, some of with whom were earlier arrested and have already been granted bail. 6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 598 that the statement of co-accused cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding a Bail Application, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. Page No.# 3/3
7. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case shall be released on pre-arrest bail with 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 8.
It is further provided that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation shall not try to influence the witnesses in any way. 9. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant