Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2508/2026 of WANBANJOP SOHKHWAI AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 30 August 2026
GAHC010182522026 2026:GAU-AS:12571 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2508/2026 WANBANJOP SOHKHWAI AND ANR S/O. DONBOK NONGKLING, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SOKHYRBAM RIM, P.S. PATHARKHMAH, DISTRICT - RI BHOI, MEGHALAYA, PIN -
GAHC010182522026
2026:GAU-AS:12571
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2508/2026
WANBANJOP SOHKHWAI AND ANR
S/O. DONBOK NONGKLING, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SOKHYRBAM RIM, P.S. PATHARKHMAH, DISTRICT - RI BHOI, MEGHALAYA, PIN - 793102
2: LOMBOK JOAKIM SOKHHWAL
S/O. SOBIRIN DOLOI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SOKHYRBAM RIM
P.S. - PATHARKHMAH
DISTRICT - RI BHOI
MEGHALAYA
PIN 79310
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M HASSAN, MR. N K HALOI,T ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
31.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners in PRC Case No. 1071/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup, Amigaon arising out of Palashbari P.S. Case No. 165/2026 under Sections 305 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1980 read with Sections 13(1)/16 of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were intercepted by the police while they were transporting 3 nos. of cattle in a Maruti 800 vehicle, which was suspected to be stolen. The investigation of the case has been completed. Hence, a charge sheet has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that the owner of the cattle could not be identified.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 305 BNSS cannot be attracted in the facts of the present case.
5. The learned additional Public Prosecutor submits that cattle would not be transported in Maruti 800 vehicle if they were bonafide purchased.
6. Having regard to the fact that the cattle have been recovered, the investigation has been completed, and the petitioners have been behind bars for
52 days, further detention of the petitioners may not be necessary.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. The petitioners were allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned District & Session Judge, Kamrup. JUDGE Comparing Assistant