Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020004292025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./22/2025 SHRI T. YANGLICHO S/O TSATHRONGLI, VILLAGE- KIPHIRE VILLAGE, KIPHIRE NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER, Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 23.07.2025 Heard Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. 2. This is a petition filed under Section 528 read with Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the truck (Tata) bearing Page No.# 2/5 registration No. NL 07 AA 2017, which was seized in connection with Meluri P.S Case No. 0001/2025 registered under Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR reveals that information was received regarding suspicious activities and mass movement of arms cadres and that on the said information, police during their duty observed suspicious activity by the driver of the Tata truck mentioned above and that the suspicion was revealed to the other police personnel and that thereafter, the truck along with 3 other trucks were stopped and upon search being made, many arms were recovered. The driver was interrogated to which he gave vague answers. However, on further interrogation, the driver showed the items. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the case under the aforesaid Sections and commenced investigation. 4. The petitioner filed an application for custody of the vehicle i.e., the Tata truck bearing registration No. NL 07 AA 2017 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phek and vide order dated 14.07.2025, the learned Court was pleased not to give custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. The learned Court observed that although the police had stated that they do not want the vehicle for any further investigation however, the police did not give the information as to the Page No.# 3/5 ownership of the vehicle and left the responsibility to find out the same upon the Court. The Court as such rejected to allow the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court for custody of the vehicle concerned. 5. The counsel for the petitioner states that the vehicle stands registered in the name of one Mr. Ajay Dey and has annexed the Registration Certificate with the petition. He however stated that on 24.02.2025, the said owner namely, Ajay Dey sold the vehicle to the petitioner by executing a Sale Deed and which he has annexed with his petition. He has also placed the Declaration affidavit by which the erstwhile owner Ajay Dey declared that he had sold the truck concerned to the petitioner and that the petitioner is the sole owner of the vehicle. 6. It is no res integra as it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions that vehicle seized in connection with criminal cases may not be kept in the Police Station for long as the same may lead to destruction of the vehicle with time. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that 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 Page No.# 4/5 appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. It was further observed that in case the vehicle is not claimed by the owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court and that if the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that if the Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court and that before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. 7. It is noticed in the instant case that the truck was seized on 13.06.2025 and the application was moved before the learned Court below on 14.07.2025 and after the rejection of the custody, the truck is lying in the Police Station. 8. In view of the observation and directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the truck concerned, bearing registration No. NL 07 AA 2017 may be given in custody to the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the vehicle and have placed documents in favor of the same, yet this Court directs Page No.# 5/5 that the police before giving the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner may enquire as to the ownership and if the police is satisfied that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle, the police may give the vehicle in custody to the petitioner during the trial of the instant case. As it is further provided that before giving custody, the necessary bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicle, if required by the Court at any point of time may be taken. Further, before handing over the possession, appropriate photograph of the said vehicle shall also be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. 9. With this observation, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant