Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010050712026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/572/2026 JALALUR BHUYAN ALIAS TOTA BHUYAN AND ANR S/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE BHUYAN R/O VILL- PIRADHARA PART-I, P.O. PIRADHARA P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783384 2: ROKIBUL ISLAM SON OF ABDUL MAZID R/O VILL- PIRADHARA PART-I P.O. PIRADHARA P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783384 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G CHAMUAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 23.06.2026 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. G. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, 1. Jalalur Bhuyan @ Tota Bhuyan and 2. Rokibul Islam, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No.10/2026 under Sections 331(4)/305(a) of the BNS. As per the allegation made in the FIR some miscreants stole one cow belonging to the informant and in course of investigation one Roshidul Pathan was arrested and on the basis of his statement, the present petitioners have been named in the forwarding report, because of which, they apprehend arrest. It appears from the forwarding report that the main accused was caught red handed with the cow indicating thereby that the stolen cow has been recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor upon perusal of the case diary submits that the main accused persons reveal that the present petitioners were involved in the theft of the cow. This Court vide order dated 31.03.2026 had granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners with a direction to carry out the investigation. However, the case diary does not reveal any statement of the petitioners being recorded by the I/O. By the last order dated 18.05.2026, the petitioners were to appear before the I/O within 7 (seven) days. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had gone to the I/O, they were told that the case was already over. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for further time to obtain instruction. However, it appears that the case diary is lying with the Public Prosecutor since 16.05.2026 and naturally the same would not reflect any statement that may have been recorded by the I/O pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2026. Having regard to the nature of the allegation and the fact that the stolen property has also Page No.# 3/3 been recorded and the order of interim pre-arrest bail was granted long ago, I am not inclined to keep the matter pending any further. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is disposed by making absolute the interim order dated 31.03.2026. However, it is made clear that if the I/O finds it necessary to interrogate the petitioners, it shall be open for the I/O to summon the petitioner and record his statement. JUDGE Comparing Assistant