Gauhati High Court

AB/1990/2026 of SIDDIQUE SIKDAR AND 2 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 24 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

GAHC010178972026 2026:GAU-AS:14247 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1990/2026 SIDDIQUE SIKDAR AND 2 ORS. S/O. KASHEM SIKDAR 2: RAHIM ALI S/O. LATE JABED ALI 3: SADEK ALI S/O. GAFUR ALI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MALIPARA P.S.

GAHC010178972026

2026:GAU-AS:14247

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : AB/1990/2026

SIDDIQUE SIKDAR AND 2 ORS.

S/O. KASHEM SIKDAR

2: RAHIM ALI

S/O. LATE JABED ALI

3: SADEK ALI

S/O. GAFUR ALI

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MALIPARA

P.S. TARABARI

DISTRICT BARPETA

ASSA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

25.09.2026

Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. P.

Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Mukalmua PS Case No. 122/2026, under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/61(2)/336(3)/340(2) of the BNS, read with Section 11(1)(d)(e) and K of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, read with Section 13 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, is preferred by applicants namely, Siddique Sikdar; Rahim Ali and Sadek Ali, for grant of pre-arrest bail.

3. The aforementioned case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Raju Deka, on 11.08.2026.

3.1. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that one Kalu Mulla had transported stolen cows with his associates in his boat, in a cruel manner.

4. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that this Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicants, vide order dated 25.08.2026 and pursuant to the said order, the applicants have appeared before the IO and cooperating with the investigating agency and their statements have also been record and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 25.08.2026, absolute in the same terms and conditions.

5. Per-contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by producing the case diary before this court, submits that though the case diary has been received, the same has not been updated since 14.08.2026.

6. Be that as it may, since the applicants have been cooperating with the investigating agency, this Court is of the view that their custodial interrogation may not be warranted here in this case. And therefore, this Court is inclined to make the interim order dated 25.08.2026, absolute in the same terms and condition.

7. In terms of above this AB stands disposed of.

8. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead