Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010003972026 2026:GAU-AS:1008 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/66/2026 SRI NITYANANDA KAMAN AND ANR SON OF LATE BHUBAN CH. KAMAN R/O VILL- BILMUKG P.O. BILMUKH P.S. GHILAMARA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN-787053. 2: IRSHAD ALI S/O SAMER ALI R/O VILL- FALIHAMARI PATHAR BHURAGAON P.O. MIKIRGAON P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR B ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. B Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application by which the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Nityananda Kaman and 2. Irshad Ali have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with Behali P.S. Case No. 107/2025 under Sections 303(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with Section 13(1) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act read with Sections 11(1) (a)/11(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act (corresponding to G.R. No. 598/2025) 3. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 was enlarged on interim pre-arrest vide order dated 19.01.2026 and pursuant to that petitioner No. 1 had gone and appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded. He submits that the cattle were purchased by one Khargeswar Medhi on behalf of petitioner No. 1 from a seller in the daily market and have documents to that effect. He further submits that the said documents were placed during the prayer made for custody of the said cattle and custody was allowed. He as such prays that the interim order allowed in respect of the said petitioner No. 1 may be made absolute. In respect of petitioner No. 2, learned counsel submits that he is the owner of the vehicle by which the cattle were transmitted from the market to the firm of the petitioner No. 1. He further submits that on a prayer made for custody of the vehicle, the Page No.# 3/4 same was also allowed to petitioner No. 2 by the learned Court on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner No. 2. As such, he prays that there is no case made out under the various provisions of law and the petitioner No. 1 is the genuine purchaser of the cattle and the petitioner No. 2 is the genuine owner of the vehicle. 4. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of the case diary submits that the petitioner No. 1 has appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded. He further submits that the facts narrated by the petitioners is not very clear from the statements made by the witnesses during the investigation. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have also gone through the materials on record. 6. It is seen that the petitioner No. 1 has co-operated with the investigation by getting his statement recorded and the petitioner No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle has also produced genuine documents during the custody of the vehicle before the learned Court. As such, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioners on pre-arrest bail. 7. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner No. 1, vide order dated 19.01.2026 is hereby made absolute with the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the said order. 8. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety under the following conditions: Page No.# 4/4 a. The petitioner No. 2 would co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for b. The petitioner No. 2 shall not hamper any witnesses connected with the said case and tamper with the evidence. 9. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant