Ikbal Hussain Vs the State of Assam

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010152512025

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2257/2025

¶6

IKBAL HUSSAIN S/O- MAJIBAR RAHMAN, VILL- SATBOINIRTUP, P.O- KALAHBHANGA, P.S- BARPETA ROAD, DISTBARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315

¶7

2: RAYHAN ALI S/O- GOLAP HUSSAIN VILL- DUTTAKUCHI DABALIAPARA P.O- DABALIAPARA P.S- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : T UDDIN, J BORAH,MR. S AHMED

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 19.07.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Aslo heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶15

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioners namely, Ikbal Hussain and Rayhan Ali who are detained behind the bars since 01.07.2025 in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 65/2025 under Section 13 (1) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021.

¶16

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.07.2025 one Susmita Konwar, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Barpeta Road Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that in the hotels namely, Jannat Hotel and Dolphin Hotel of Barpeta Road, illegal selling of Beef meat is carried out. A search was conducted in both the hotels and during search operation, in Jannat Hotel about 27.95 Kg and in Dolphin Hotel 27.800 Kg of suspected beef meat were recovered.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners are students and are part time employees of the said hotels. He submits that considering the nature of offence as well as the period of detention undergone, further custodial detention may not be necessary. He further submits that, both the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation, hence, prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail.

¶18

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail at this stage and has prayed for calling of the case diary.

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. Since in this case, the suspected beef meat has already been recovered and considering the nature of the offence involved in this case, the period of detention undergone by both the petitioners appears to be sufficient enough for any custodial interrogation in cases of such nature. Hence, if the petitioners cooperate in the investigation their further custodial detention may not be necessary.

¶21

7. Accordingly, both the above main petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs : 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Barpeta with following conditions:

¶22

(i) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer;

¶23

(ii) That the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation;

¶24

8. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Ikbal Hussain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikbal Hussain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamedur Islam @ Hamidur Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amanur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Imran Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Sri Rubul Bora Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sapat Rabha Alias Sapar Chandra Rabha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rukia Begum @ Rukiya Begum Vs the State of Assam