Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010185612025 2025:GAU-AS:12909 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1027/2025 KACHEM ALI S/O ABDUL ALI R/O KAWAIMARI P.S. RUPAHIHAT DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SUMITRA SAIKIA WSI OF POLICE S/O LATE UMARAN SAIKIA OF ITACHALI TOP P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.09.2025 Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Kachem Ali, impugning the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in connection with Sessions (T-2) Case No.30/2025 arising out of Nagaon P.S. Case No.1110/2024, registered under Sections 310(4)/312 of BNSS, 2023. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition is that in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No.1110/2024, one Baleno Alpha vehicle bearing registration No.AS-02-AA-8926 was seized. The requisitioned in that case was made against one Jahirul Islam @ Rakibul Hussain. The aforesaid case, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been laid against three accused persons namely, 1.Md Habij Bhuyan 2. Md. Amir Hamja, and 3. Md. Jahirul Islam @ Rakibul Hussain. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. To support his submission he has produced a copy of the registration certificate of the seized vehicle, wherein, the name of the present petitioner has been shown as the registered owner of the vehicle. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in respect of the said vehicle one agreement to sale was entered into between Jahirul Islam and the present petitioner. However, as the sale was not complete, the name of the petitioner continued to remain as the owner in the registration certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the vehicle was found to be use illegal activities, the petitioner cancel the sale agreement and has Page No.# 3/5 returned back of Rs.1,40,000/- to the said Jahirul Islam with whom, the agreement of sale in respect of the vehicle was entered. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order, the prayer for zimma of the seized vehicle in the present petitioner was rejected namely on the ground that the accused Jahirul Islam @ Rakibul Hussain had lodged a written objection and also on the ground that while executing the agreement of sale, the petitioner had received of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the said Jahirul Islam. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the Jahirul Islam has been paid back the money i.e. of Rs.1,40,000/- by the present petitioner and therefore, said Jahirul Islam has shown an affidavit, which is submitted this criminal petition, wherein, he has submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the said Jahirul Islam has been amicably settled and he does not have any objection if the vehicle is given in zimma to the present petitioner. The original copy of the said affidavit is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is marked as ‘X’ and kept with the case record. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. It appears that the vehicle in question was seized on 19.11.2024 and for last more than 10 months, it has been kept in police station under the open sky. 9. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as Page No.# 4/5 well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 10. In view of the above aforesaid observations, there is no dispute with the legal propositions that it is no used in the police station for a long period and the Magistrate can pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. 11. In the instant case, by the impugned order, the prayer for zimma was rejected mainly on the ground of objection lodged by the accused Jahirul Islam to the effect that he has paid of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the present petitioner. However, by filing the affidavit which has been marked as ‘X’, the said Jahirul Islam has stated that he has no objection if the vehicle is given in zimma to the petitioner, as the present petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and as he is also not named as an accused in this case. Moreover, the vehicle in question has been kept under the open sky in the police station campus. This is a fit case where the impugned order has to be interfered with and the zimma of the vehicle may be granted to the registered owner i.e the petitioner in this case. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Investigating Officer of Nagaon Police Station is directed to gave the zimma of the said vehicle bearing registration No.AS-02- AA-8926 to the present petitioner on his furnishing a bond of Rs.6,00,000/- with an undertaking by the petitioner to produce the aforesaid vehicle as an when so required by the Trial Court. At the time of giving the zimma, the Investigating Officer shall prepare an inventory of Page No.# 5/5 his vehicle and also take photographs from the different angles of the seized vehicle and after giving the zimma, the bond, inventory and the photographs shall be sent to the Trial Court for keeping the same along with the records of the Trial Court. 13. With the above observations, this criminal petition is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant