Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010185992024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1145/2024 BHUPEN GOGOI S/O UMESH GOGOI VILL- GELAGELI, BETANIPAM P.S. SILAPATHAR DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA, MR. S Y AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 06-01-2025 Heard Mr. S.Y. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for quashing the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 passed in connection with Silapathar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2024 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji rejecting the prayer of zimma petition filed by the petitioner for zimma of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-22-H- 8344 (Maruti Swift). 3. Report as called for along with the Case Diary is received. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle has been seized in connection with this case 9 months ago and it is still in the custody of police. He is the registered owner of the said vehicle and vehicle may not be required for further investigation of this case. He further submitted that there is a probability of damage of the vehicle if it is kept further in the open space of the premises of the police station. Mr. Ahmed also relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No. 284 of 2022, in that the power u/s 457 Cr.PC can be exercised by the Magistrate, if any article is not produced during the investigation. 5. Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on perusal of the Case Diary it is seen that the vehicle was used in connection with this case at the time of committing the offence and further from the Report of the Investigating Officer also it is seen that the vehicle is not only used for committing murder in connection with this case but the same was also used in another case of Sipajhar P.S. Case No. 122 of 2023 u/s 366 IPC which is already been charge-sheeted. Further it is submitted that one of the co-accused who was very much present at the time of occurrence is still absconding and he is yet to be arrested in connection with this case. Ms. S.H. Bora further submitted that the vehicle may be required for further investigation of this case and raised Page No.# 3/3 objection in prayer for zimma of the vehicle at this stage. 6. Heard the submission of learned counsel for both sides. I have also perused the Report of the Investigating Officer as well as the Case Diary and the materials so far collected by the Investigating Officer. It is seen that the vehicle is very much involved at the time of committing the offence and the vehicle was also used in connection with another case as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Trial Court below had rejected the prayer for zimma. Considering the fact that the seized article i.e. the car was produced before the Magistrate during the investigation and accordingly it was observed that the zimma cannot be allowed by complying u/s 457 Cr.PC during the stage of investigation. However, it is an admitted fact that the car is in the custody of the Investigating Officer for a considerable period and probability of damage of the vehicle also cannot be denied at this stage. 7. But, considering the gravity of offence as well as the use of the vehicle in the offence it cannot be denied that the vehicle may be required for further investigation to recreate any scene etc. during investigation. Hence, I do not find it proper to release the vehicle at this stage and the petition stands rejected. 8. The report of the Investigating Officer be kept as a part of the record. 9. The criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant