Allowed

Rofiqul Hussain and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2660/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to three accused persons in a case involving illegal possession of beef. The court found that the investigation had made substantial progress, and continued detention was not warranted in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Accused persons enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with surety to the satisfaction of the JMFC.

Rofiqul Hussain and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010197022026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2660/2026

¶6

ROFIQUL HUSSAIN AND 2 ORS. S/O RAZAK ALI, VILLAGE DAMPUR, P.S. HAJO, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

2: SHAHJAHAN ALI

¶8

S/O ATAWAR RAHMAN VILLAGE GHOPA P.S. MUKALMUA DISTRICT NALBARI ASSAM 3: ISAHAQUE ALI S/O LATE EUNUS ALI VILLAGE HAMLakur P.S. MUKALMUA DISTRICT NALBARI ASSAM VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S HAQUE, MS S ABDULLAH,MR. A E HUSSAIN

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 15.09.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶17

This petition, under Section 483, BNSS is preferred by three accused, namely, Rafikul Hussain, Sahjahan Ali and Isahaque Ali, who have been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 433/2026, under Sections 303(2)/317(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 13(1)/16 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, for grant of bail.

¶18

It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Tankeswar Deka on 06.09.2026, before the Officer-in-charge, Dadara Police Outpost. The allegation against the present accused persons is that on 06.09.2026, at about 8:30 a.m., one Rafikul Hussain, Sahjahan Ali, Isahaque Ali and Sahidul Rahman were found in possession of beef, which they had carried illegally in four scooters near Lakhimi Hotel, Dadara.

¶19

Mr. Abdullah, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused persons were arrested on 06.09.2026 and since then, they have been languishing in jail hazot, and that the recovered beef had already been seized by police and also the I.O. got sufficient time for investigation, and as such, further custodial detention of the accused persons is not warranted in the interest of investigation, and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

vehemently opposed the petition. By producing the case diary before this Court, he submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused persons, and as such, he has contended to dismiss the petition.

¶23

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶24

It appears that the accused persons were arrested on 06.09.2026, and since then, they have been languishing in jail hazot. It also appears that the I.O. has achieved substantial progress in the investigation, and in that view of the matter, further custodial detention of the accused persons seems to be not warranted in the interest of investigation, and accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow the petition.

¶25

It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each, with surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Hajo, the accused persons be enlarged on bail.

¶26

In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶27

Case diary be returned.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Rofiqul Hussain and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rofiqul Hussain and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases