Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010164622025 2025:GAU-AS:11815 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./917/2025 HANIFUR RAHMAN AND ANR SON OF LATE AJIJUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- SONAPUR, P.O. AN DP.S. SONAPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: SAHIDA BEGUM W/O HANIFUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- SONAPUR P.O. AN DP.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date: 01.09.2025 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 15.07.2025, passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S)-I, Kamrup (Metro), Assam, in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, under Sections 303(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The facts of the case are that the complainant, Dulal Deka, a resident of Digaru Ghagua, on 04.04.2025, lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge, Sonapur Police Station, Guwahati, alleging that on 03.04.2025, at around 4.20 PM, while he was visiting the SBI ATM at Air Force Station Digaru to withdrawn money, an unknown person swapped his ATM card. Later on, when he visited the Bank, he came to know that Rs. 2,50,000/- was withdrawn from his account. Accordingly, after investigating, the accused no. 1 was arrested by the Police of Sonapur Police Station in connection with Sonapur P. S. Case No. 69 of 2025, under Sections 303(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023, for the alleged offences committed by him. During the investigation, the police had seized several ATM cards, mobile phones as well as one Baleno vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BY-1932, which was alleged to have been used during the commission of the crime. Presently, the accused no. 1 is on bail. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had filed a Zimma application being Zimma Petition No. 1982, before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Page No.# 3/4 Magistrate (S)-I, Kamrup (Metro), Assam, for the seized articles along with the Baleno vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BY-1932. After receipt of the report of the I.O., the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S)-I, Kamrup (Metro), Assam, vide order dated 15.07.2025, rejected the Zimma petition filed by the petitioners, stating that as per the report of the I.O., no one had approached the Investigating Officer claiming the ownership of the seized vehicle or the articles nor any ownership documents were submitted. It was also stated, as per the report of the I.O., verification of the ownership of the vehicle and the report of the DTO was still awaited. It was also stated that the above mentioned articles were vital to the ongoing investigation as the accused is involved in ATM card exchange frauds, targeting elders and vulnerable individuals and if the seized vehicle was to be released at that stage, the accused might resume his fraudulent activities. 5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent, has objected to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. This Court has gone through the materials available on record. It is seen from the prayer for remand of the accused to police custody, the accused person has been arrested earlier also in similar ATM frauds. It is also seen from the instant petition filed by the petitioners that the petitioners have submitted a computer generated document, wherein, it can be seen that the Registration No. i.e. AS-01-BY-1932 is registered against Ms. Sahida Begum i.e., the petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of the accused no. 1. However, while going through the materials coming on record, this Court do not find any document suggesting that either the accused no. 1 or the accused no. 2 has ever approached the Investigating Officer, showing a document that either he or she own the vehicle in question. This fact is of vital importance in a Zimma petition. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the order dated 15.07.2025; passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S)-I, Kamrup (Metro), Page No.# 4/4 Assam, does not warrant any kind of interference. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal petition is dismissed as rejected. 8. However, the petitioners may approach the learned Court below with a petition for Zimma, enclosing the relevant documents to show their ownership of the seized vehicle. JUDGE Comparing Assistant