Allowed

Amzad Dewan v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026Crl.Rev.P./462/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's order denying custody of eight seized cattle. The court found that the investigating officer had verified ownership in favor of the petitioner and confirmed the cattle were no longer needed for investigation. The court ordered release of the cattle to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 4,00,000 and payment of maintenance costs.

What did the court decide?

Release of eight seized cattle to petitioner upon furnishing bond of Rs. 4,00,000 and payment of maintenance/treatment costs.

Amzad Dewan Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010194852026

2026:GAU-AS:13906

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./462/2026

¶6

AMZAD DEWAN S/O SADEK DEWAN

¶7

RESIDENT OF MALIPARA, KHANGRA, P.O. KHONGRA, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781305

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

2:OFFICER-INCHARGE OF OF CHANGSARI POLICE STATION

¶11

KAMRUP ASSAM P.O. AND P.S. CHANGSARI ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S AHMED, MS F INTAZ,MR. M A SHEIKH

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶14

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

18.09.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

No.1.

¶20

2. In this petition under Section 442 read with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner has challenged the correctness, legality and impropriety of the order, dated 03.09.2026, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, in Petition No.2088/2026.

¶21

3. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying 8 nos. of cattle in a Bolero Max vehicle, bearing Registration No.AS-01SC-6009, and the said vehicle was intercepted and later on seized by police in between Rangia and Baihata, and thereafter lodged one FIR on 23.08.2026 under Section 303(2)/281 of BNS, read with Section 11(1)(a)/11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He also submits that thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed one petition, being Petition No.2088/2026, seeking custody of the 8 nos. of cattle seized by the Investigating Officer. But, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, has dismissed the petition and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶22

4. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, has dismissed the petition considering some of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, under which no case has been registered by police and as such, the impugned order, being passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, is without jurisdiction and therefore, he has contended to set it aside.

¶23

5. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. has produced one report from the Investigating Officer as per direction of this Court, vide order dated 11.09.2026, and on the basis of the said report, he submits that as the ownership of 8 nos. of seized cattle were verified and it has been found that the cattle belongs to the petitioner and the seized cattles are also no longer required for further investigation of Changsari P.S. Case No.212/2026. Therefore, Mr. Sarma has contended to pass necessary order.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 03.09.2026, and also the report, dated 17.09.2026, filed by the Investigating Officer.

¶26

7. It appears that the ownership of the seized 8 nos. of cattle have already been verified by the I.O. and according to him, the said cattle belongs to the petitioner and the same are also not required for the purpose of investigation of Changsari P.S. Case No.212/2026. And in that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this petition may be allowed and accordingly, the same stands allowed.

¶27

8. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, the seized 8 nos. of cattle be released in custody of the petitioner, subject however to payment of the cost for maintenance and treatment, if any, of the seized cattle, till the date of releasing the same, from the date of custody to the petitioner.

¶28

9. The report produced before the Court today shall be marked as Flag-'X' and be tagged with the record.

¶29

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Amzad Dewan v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amzad Dewan v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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