Oli Bibi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

granting pre-arrest bail to the accused applicants in connection with Pathsala P. S. Case No. 03/2026 under Sections 3(5)/305(a) of the BNS read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and Section 11(1)(a) of the Preservation of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 04.01.2026, the complainant, Shri Pranjit Talukdar of Doligaon under Pathsala Police Station, lodged an FIR alleging that a red and white colour cow, belonging to him, had been missing since 28.12.2025 and could not be traced despite the search. However, on 01.01.2026, the complainant watched a video broadcast on a local television channel, in which it was seen that some unknown miscreants had forcibly lifted a red and white cow and loaded it into a white colour luxury vehicle. Upon seeing the video, the complainant identified the cow as his missing cow, and therefore, he suspected that some unknown miscreants had stolen his cow. By filing the FIR, he prayed for legal action against the unknown miscreants and for the recovery of the cow. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered Pathsala P.S. Case No. 03/2025 under the aforementioned sections.

¶21

Ms. S. K. Nargis, learned counsel for the accused applicants, submits that the accused applicants are in no way linked to the alleged theft of the cow. Learned counsel further submits that the accused applicants are not named in the FIR. She states that the accused applicants are the owners of the vehicle used in the cattle theft, which is operated by hired drivers for their livelihood. She further submits that the accused applicants were neither present at the scene of the alleged offence nor had any knowledge of the offence. The accusations against the applicants are based solely on the ownership of the vehicle. She also points out that accused applicant No. 1 is a housewife, while accused applicant No. 2 is a businessman. She argues that in the event of their

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

arrest, their societal reputations would be tarnished due to mere suspicion. Therefore, she prays for the granting of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicants.

¶24

On the other hand, Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits, by producing the Case Diary before this Court, that there are statements from various witnesses and co-accused indicating that the vehicle used in the alleged incident belongs to the accused applicants and they were involved in the alleged offence. She argues that custodial interrogation of the accused applicants is necessary. Therefore, she requests that the bail application be rejected.

¶25

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has carefully perused the Case Diary submitted before this Court.

¶26

It is noted that the accused applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with the aforementioned case, although they were not named in the FIR filed by the complainant. It is also submitted that the vehicle used in the alleged theft belongs to the accused applicants, but they claim that the vehicle was operated by a hired driver and they had no knowledge of the offense. After considering all the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the accused applicants should be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is directed that, in the event of the arrest of the accused applicants by the arresting authority, they shall be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each, with surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, in connection with Pathsala P.S. Case No. 03/2026, subject to the following conditions:

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

i. that the accused applicants shall appear before the

¶29

investigating officer within 10 (ten) days from passing of this order;

¶30

ii. that the accused applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available before the investigating authority as and when call for;

¶31

iii. that the accused applicants shall not directly or indirectly try to hamper or tamper with the investigation in the instant case;

¶32

In view of the above directions, the pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of as allowed.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Oli Bibi and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oli Bibi and Anr. 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

Ajit Kumar Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Laliteswar Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rakesh Ahammed Vs the Union of India

Kabir Ranjan Deka Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Lal Miya Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Abdur Rousan Vs the State of Assam