Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010248882024
2024:GAU-AS:11972
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3608/2024
JEHIRUL ISLAM @ RAJA
S/O MD AKIBAR ALI
R/O BORCHUKABAHA
P.S. MIKIRBHETA,
DIST. MORIGAON
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE LD.PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. T CHUTIA,R L CHUTIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
29.11.2024
Heard Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P.
Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the release of the petitioner, who has been
languishing in jail hazot since 27.10.2024 in connection with Mikirbheta P.S.
Case No. 138/2024, registered under Section 303(2) of the BNS, read with
Section 11 of the PCA Act.
3. The Case Diary called for in connection with the similar matter, i.e., AB
Case No. 3011/2024, is available, and I have perused the same.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chutia, has submitted that as
per the FIR, the incident took place on 16.10.2024 at about 8:00 P.M. upon
receiving secret information that vehicle bearing Registration Nos. AS-02CC-
4244, AS-01HC-8905, and AS-01RC-4236 were carrying suspected stolen cattle
from the Nagaon side towards Morigaon. Accordingly, a Naka Checking was
conducted. During the vehicle check at Jaluguti, the aforesaid vehicles were
signaled to stop as suspected stolen cattle were seen, but all of them attempted
to flee. The vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02CC-4244 was successfully
intercepted, while the other two vehicles managed to fled away from the place
of occurrence.
5. However, from the forwarding report, it is seen that another incident
occurred on 27.10.2024 at about 4:00 P.M., when, upon seeing the police team,
Page No.# 3/5
two cattle-loaded vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01HC-8905 and AS-
01PC-1183 fled at high speed. After a chase, the present petitioner was arrested
along with one Merajul Islam, but the vehicle could not be intercepted, as it was
concealed somewhere, taking advantage of the zig-zag multiple roads. But, no
FIR was lodged for the said incident and he was forwarded in connection with
FIR lodged on 16.10.2024.
6. Thus, he submits that the petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2024 and has
been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was duly produced before the
Elaka Magistrate, Morigaon, on 27.10.2024, and the Trial Court sent him to
police remand for 7 days on the same date. He further submits that the FIR was
lodged on 16.10.2024, and the prime accused, namely Ijajuddin Ali, was duly
arrested in connection with the present case. Additionally, he submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he is not at all involved in the alleged offence as
mentioned in the FIR. To date, no complaint or FIR has been lodged by anyone
claiming the theft of cattle. The learned counsel submits that there is no
ingredient to attract Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021,
read with Section 11 of the PCA Act, against the present petitioner.
Furthermore, the petitioner is behind bar for the last 33 days, and the IO got
ample opportunity to interrogate him; and hence further custodial interrogation
may not be necessary at this stage. And hence, considering the length of
detention the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant regular bail to the
petitioner and further he is ready to co-operate with the IO, if he is granted bail.
7. In this context, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits
that there is sufficient incriminating material available against the
accused/petitioner. During the investigation, it was revealed that the
accused/petitioner is the prime accused and has a criminal antecedent of similar
Page No.# 4/5
offences. Furthermore, he submits that this is an organized crime committed by
a group that conceals vehicles along with stolen cattle if any members are
apprehended by the police. He further stated that during interrogation, it was
revealed that the petitioners in the AB Case No. 3011/2024, were also involved
in the alleged offence, and both the vehicles and stolen cattle are still in their
custody. He submits that further custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth
the facts of the case and to apprehend the other co-accused persons involved in
the organized crime. He also contends that releasing the petitioner at this stage
would hamper and tamper with the investigation. Thus, he submits that joint
custodial interrogation of the petitioner along with the other co-accused is
required in the interest of the investigation. Accordingly, he raised objection,
submitting that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused/petitioner
merely on the ground of the length of detention.
8. In addition to his submissions, he relies on the decision passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indresh Kumar vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 610, wherein, it has been held
that “the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in
evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an
accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence”.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
submitted that the petitioner purchased the cattle from a registered market. He
further submits that no permission is required to carry cattle from the registered
market for the purpose of sale or purchase, and similarly, no permission is
required for carrying cattle for grazing purposes.
10. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, the
Page No.# 5/5
materials available in the case diary, and the objections filed by the IO, it is
evident that although the FIR was lodged on 16.10.2024, naka checking was
carried out as other culprits and the vehicles had fled during the investigation.
Furthermore, another incident occurred on 27.10.2024, which is part of the
ongoing investigation, wherein one vehicle was intercepted on 16.10.2024.
Moreover, there is sufficient incriminating material revealing that the present
petitioner is one of the prime accused in this case, and he also has a criminal
antecedent related to similar crimes. Therefore, I find that further custodial
interrogation of the accused/petitioner may be necessary to ascertain the facts
of the case, as well as to recover the stolen cattle and vehicles. The length of
detention cannot be considered at this stage. Accordingly, I am of the view that
this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner,
and the same stands rejected.
11. In terms of above, this Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant