Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010106732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./591/2025 BODIUJ JAMAN SON OF MD. FAJAL HOQUE MANDAL VILL- A KAWATIKA, P.O. KAWATIKA, PART-I, P.S./SUB-DIVISION- BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM PIN- 783390 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J PAYENG, MS. SUSMITA DOLEY,MS A PAYENG,MR G TAKU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.08.2025 Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for custody of the vehicle i.e. Page No.# 2/3 Mahindra XYLO E-2 vehicle bearing Registration No.AS 01 AL 5320 which was seized in connection with Bijni P.S. Case No.15/2025 pending in the Court of SDJM(M), Bijni, Chirang. 3. The petitioner states that an application for custody of the vehicle was moved before the concerned Court and vide orders dated 07.04.2025 as well as 30.04.2025 the said prayer was rejected on the ground that the vehicle is required for examination of the documents as well as to find out the actual registered owner. 4. Mr. J. Payeng submits that the vehicle is no longer required for any investigation and as such in view of the various judgments passed by the Apex Court, there is no purpose in keeping the vehicle in the Police Station and that the same may be given in custody by complying with the requirements as set out by the Apex Court. Further, Mr. Payeng has annexed the documents showing that the petitioner viz., Bodiuj Jaman is the registered owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel has annexed the Registration Certificate which shows that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and as such he has prayed that the custody of the vehicle may be given to the petitioner. 5. Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that Charge- sheet has been submitted in connection with the instant case which shows that the investigation is over and the vehicle will no longer be required for any further investigation. Further, it is no res integra that vehicles or any other articles should not be kept in police custody for long as the same would get Page No.# 3/3 damaged with the efflux of time. 6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at Police Station for a long period and that it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles if required at any point of time and it has also been observed that if the vehicle is not claimed by the owner, Insurance Company or any third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. 7. In the instant case it is seen that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the same needs to be given in custody to the said owner i.e. the petitioner. However, while handing over the custody, appropriate bond and guarantee and security should be taken. Further, it is required that the police before handing over the vehicle to the petitioner may prepare appropriate panchnama of the same and take photographs of the said vehicle. It is also observed that the police may put any other condition for safety and security of the vehicle. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant