✦ Gauhati High Court

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AJIT BORTHAKUR2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
AJIT BORTHAKUR

Judgment

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

26.06.2023 ORDER Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent. By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused/petitioners, namely 1) Imran Khan 2) Najrul Islam and 3) Md. Anarul Hoque have prayed for grant of bail in connection with Jagiroad P.S. Case No.169/2023 under Sections 379/34 of the IPC read with Section 11(1)(a)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. The case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The case relates to recovery and seizure of 43 numbers of bulls (1 died) from two trucks bearing registration Nos. AS 01 KC 3732 and AS 01 CC 8443 while being taken to Meghalaya from Golaghat in a very congested and negligent manner. It is noticed that the accused petitioners have been in judicial custody since 19.05.2023, that is, for 39 days.

Perusal of the case diary shows prima facie incriminating material against the accused petitioners. There is prima facie evidence to show that the accused petitioners were involved in smuggling of cattle from Assam to Meghalaya. However, considering the length of detention only, this Court is of the opinion that further continuation of detention of the accused petitioners in the interest of the ongoing investigation may not be required. Accordingly, it is provided that each of the accused petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon subject to the following conditions- Page No.# 3/3 i) That the accused petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating officer as and when required; ii) That the accused petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the investigating officer or to the Court; and iii) That the accused petitioners shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which they are accused of commission. Breach of any of the above conditions shall render cancellation of the bail in accordance with law. Return the case diary. This disposes of the bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments