Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010176992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./978/2025 MAMONI SWARGIARY W/O SRIKAMAL SWARGIARY VILL- LAILANGPARA P.S. ROWTA DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM PIN-784514. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K MEDHI, MR M BASUMATARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 04.02.2026 Heard Mr. D.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Vide the last order dated 28.01.2026, a report was called for from the Page No.# 2/4 Investigating Officer, Rowta Police Station as regards the necessity to keep the seized vehicle in connection with the case being Rowta Police Station Case No. 58/2025 and in response to the same, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have placed the letter dated 04.02.2026 issued by the S.I. of Rowta Police Station stating inter alia that the said vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 01 GE 6322 may be again used in transportation of the Cannabis and as such may not be given in custody to the petitioner. 3. This instruction was received by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by way of an electronic mode and the same is placed on record. 4. By this instant application filed under 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Udalguri by which the zimma petition filed in connection with the said Rowta Police Station case seeking zimma of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 01 GE 6322 was rejected. The petitioner has prayed that the said vehicle may be given in custody to her and she is the rightful owner of the same. 5. It is seen that the FIR in connection with the instant case was lodged on 21.05.2025 wherein it was stated that on receipt of a reliable information about some persons concealing suspected cannabis, the police personnel after making the GD Entry and after receiving the authorisation went to the place of occurrence and found that two persons, namely, Kamal Swargiary, husband of the petitioner and Gopal Bora loitering near the house of one Narayan Daimary in the aforesaid vehicle and on suspicion, the police party told them to stop but they tried to flee away therefrom. However, the police team stopped and apprehended the said two persons from the vehicle and during interrogation, it was found out that the said two persons were supposed to import the suspected cannabis from the house of one Narayan Daimary and on further search being made, three packets of cannabis were found in the house of Narayan Daimary. On the said date, i.e., on 21.05.2025, the vehicle was seized and Page No.# 3/4 was kept in the Police Station and since then the vehicle is in custody of the Police Personnel. 6. It is no res integra that vehicles or other articles seized in connection with offences may not be kept in the Police Station for long as the same would result in wear and tear of the said articles. 7. In the Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is stated that the vehicles seized in connection with the offences should be given in custody to the owner or to the person from whom it seized or to the Insurance Company and in absence of the same, it could be also auctioned. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that there is no need for keeping the vehicles for long in the Police Station and the same should be given in custody by the Magistrate as soon as possible. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that the vehicle was seized in the month of May, 2025 and the owner of the said vehicle is the wife of the one of the person from whom the vehicle was seized. It is also seen that no contraband were recovered from the vehicle and that the same were recovered from the house of one Narayan Daimary. The petitioner has also annexed the Registration Certificate of the vehicle wherein it is shown that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also ordered that before giving in custody the vehicle or other articles, proper panchnama should be prepared, photograph should be taken and by executing the bond and security of the vehicle. 11. Since there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle, this Court deems it fit that the custody of the vehicle being FRONX TURBO S HYBRID ALPHA may be given in custody to the petitioner bearing Registration No. AS 01 GE 6322 to the petitioner by following the necessary requirements as provided under the law, such as taking photographs, executing a bond and security as well as preparing proper Page No.# 4/4 panchnama with the further condition that the petitioner may produce the vehicle as and when required during the trial. 12. The concerned Magistrate may take any other steps required while handing over the custody of the vehicles to the petitioner. 13. The Criminal Petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant