Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030004222025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./24/2025 Sh. Nazrul Islam Laskar S/o Amir Uddin Laskar R/o Dolchara, Hailakandi District Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. R/b the Secretary/Commissioner Excise and Narcotics Department Government of Mizoram 2:The Officer-in-Charg Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. J H Ramneihmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram ORDER BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 24.07.2025 Heard Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Page No.# 2/7 i.e., Sh. Nazrul Islam Laskar, is seeking for release of the Motor Vehicle, i.e., Tata 1816 LPT brick red colour bearing Registration No. AS 28 AC 1618, Chasis No. MAT843014P7E10439, Engine No. 3.3LNGD11EWX513881, which has been seized by the Excise & Narcotic, Anti-Narcotics Squad in connection with Excise Case No. EXN- 263/23 dated 28.09.2023 registered under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 3. It appears that the subject matter of the petition is the custody of the vehicle in question, which has been seized by the Anti-Narcotics Squad in connection with the aforesaid case under the ND&PS Act, 1985. It appears that the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid seizure of his motor vehicle, submitted an application two times before the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl for releasing of his vehicle under Zimanama, however, on both the occasions, i.e., 22.11.2023 and 07.02.2024, the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl rejected the same. 4. The Order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl reads as hereunder:- “ORDER 1. Case record put, up for hearing on zimanama application. 2. I heard the Id. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Id. Addl. PP assisted by APP. 3. The Id. Counsel submitted that on 28.9.2023 the petitioner's vehicle TATA 1816 LPT B/R No. AS 28 AC 1618 was seized by the Excise personnel for alleged commission of offence u/s 21(c) ND&PS Act. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle which is still in excise custody. The Id Counsel also submitted that there is no safe and proper custody for keeping the said vehicle and is in danger of mechanical and technical defects if it is longer detain in custody without maintenance for longer time. He also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish the conditions imposed by the court if the said vehicle is released on zimanama. He, therefore, prayed the court to release the motor vehicle on zimanama. Page No.# 3/7 4. The Id. Addl. PP assisted by APP strongly objected the release of the seized vehicle on zimanama on the grounds that the case is non- chargesheet and longer needed for investigation. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application 5. After hearing rival counsels and upon careful perusal of the record, the court did not see any grounds to release the vehicle on zimanama at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. 6. With this order, this Crl. Misc. Appin. No. 300/23 stands disposed of. 7. Give copy of this order to all concern. Sd/- R.LALDUHAWMI Judge, Special Court, ND & PS Act.” 5. The Order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl reads as hereunder:- “ORDER 1. Counsels for both parties are present. 2. Today is fixed for hearing on Zimanama application. 3. I heard the Id. counsel for the petitioner as well as the Id. Addl. PP. 4. The Id. Counsel main contention is that the petitioner is rightful owner of the seized vehicle i.e. TATA 1816 LPT B/R No. AS-28-AC-1618, seized by the Excise & Narcotics personnel in connection with the above mentioned case. That the seized vehicle is not kept in a safe custody and further detention of the vehicle in the custody of the Excise & Narcotics personnel without any maintenance may lead to irreparable damage to the vehicle and prayed the hon'ble Court to release the seized vehicle to him with any conditions as deemed fit by the hon'ble Court. 5. Per contra, the Id. Addl. P.P. strongly objected by submitting that the case is non-chargesheet and is under investigation and prayed the court to reject the application. Page No.# 4/7 6. Heard both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the case is non-chargesheet and is under investigation and hence, the application is rejected. 7. With this order, this CMA No. 12/2024 stands disposed of. 8. Give copy of this order to all concern. Sd/- R.LALDUHAWMI Judge, Special Court, ND & PS Act.” Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed. 6. Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the seized vehicle and since the aforesaid vehicle is used by the petitioner for commercial purposes, seizure of the same has caused financial hardship to the petitioner. He further relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 7. Per contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents submits that it appears from the order of the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl that the prayer of Zimanama of the aforesaid vehicle was rejected on both occasions primarily on the ground that Charge-sheet was not filed. 8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record. 9. Apt at this stage to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case Page No.# 5/7 of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has laid down the principles in relation to the power of the Trial Court under Section 451 Cr.PC to be exercised. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment with regard to the vehicles reads as hereunder:- "15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned. 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 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. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 10. Reading of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the unhesitant view that Page No.# 6/7 the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, ought to have passed appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for the return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time, inasmuch as, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the Police Station only for the purpose that the said vehicle was used for transporting recovered alleged contraband articles. 11. That being so, the aforesaid orders of the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, whereby the custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner was rejected are totally erroneous. 12. Resultantly, considering the principle settled in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), the prayer for Zimanama of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 28 AC 1618, Chasis No. MAT843014P7E10439, Engine No. 3.3LNGD11EWX513881, vehicle documents and its ignition key, which was seized by the Excise & Narcotic, Anti-Narcotics Squad in connection with Excise Case No. EXN- 263/23 dated 28.09.2023 registered under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 is allowed. 13. As such, the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl is directed to release the seized vehicle, i.e., Motor Vehicle (Tata 1816 LPT) brick red colour bearing Registration No. AS 28 AC 1618, Chasis No. MAT843014P7E10439, Engine No. 3.3LNGD11EWX 513881, vehicle documents and its ignition key to the above named petitioner on his proper identification and on verification of all the relevant documents relating to the said vehicle in original and after taking photograph of the said vehicle and on furnishing the Zimanama bond equivalent to the market value of the seized vehicle with further condition that the petitioner shall not alienate the said vehicle and shall produce it before the Trial Court whenever it is required, in the case during the Page No.# 7/7 course of trial. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the Order dated 22.11.2023 and Order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl are also hereby set aside and quashed. 15. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant