Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010249902025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1389/2025 SIRAJUL ISLAM C/O ALI AJAGAR, R/O KUKARPAR, KHANGRA, DIST. BARPETA, PIN 781305 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MD IMRAN,MS N J BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 13.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sirajul Islam impugning the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Mushalpur in Barama P.S. Case No. 64/2025. 3. By the said order, the custody of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-FC-7029 was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is only aggrieved Page No.# 2/4 by the impugned order to the extent that it has directed the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and he has purchased the seized vehicle on bank finance by paying regular EMIs. Hence, he submits that it would be very cumbersome on his part to comply the condition imposed by the Trial Court of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only for granting zimma of the seized vehicle to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the zimma of the aforesaid vehicle was granted to the present petitioner as same was no longer required for the purpose of investigation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of furnishing bank guarantee is to ensure that the petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when required during the trial and shall not alienate the same. This purpose can be achieved by imposing other conditions which would bind the petitioner to produce the vehicle if and when required during the investigation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the following cases of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the Court has modified the condition of bank guarantee and allowed the zimma of the vehicle seized in those cases by putting other conditions:- (i) Nekib Ali –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 330/2023 (ii) BS Nargis –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 25/2023 (iii) Abdul Bachi –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Petition No. 1010/2023 (iv) Jakir Hussain –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1/2025 Page No.# 3/4 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with the law of the land and the same does not require any interference by this Court. He submits that Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 provides for release of the seized vehicle in a case involving an offence under the said Act only on furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to the value of the material or the vehicle seized. Hence, he submits that there is no other provision to release the seized vehicle in a case involving an offence under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as also gone through the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the condition of furnishing bank guarantee in those cases were relaxed. 10. Bare perusal of the provision of Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 would show that the purpose of furnishing bank guarantee is to bind the owner of the seized vehicle so that he produces the seized vehicle if and when required for the sake of investigation or for the sake of trial. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that in case of an extreme difficulty on the part of the owner of the vehicle to furnish bank guarantee, the said condition may be relaxed by the Court. 12. This Court is also of the opinion that if conditions are imposed on the owner of the vehicle so as to bind him so that he produces the vehicle and does not alienate the same during the pendency of the investigation or the trial, the purpose sought to be achieved by Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act may otherwise also be achieved. 13. It appears that though the order of grant of zimma of the vehicle was passed by the Trial Court on 15.10.2025, however, due to financial constraint and Page No.# 4/4 due to inability of the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee, the vehicle could not yet been given zimma in pursuant to the direction of the Trial Court. 14. In view of above circumstances, this Court, for the ends of justice and considering the inability of the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the vehicle seized modifies the impugned order as follows:- In lieu of the bank guarantee mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner is allowed to furnish personal bond of Rs.7 Lakh along with a bond of a solvent surety for the same amount as a condition for release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner who is the registered owner of the seized vehicle, subject to the following conditions:- I. The investigating authority shall prepare proper panchnama of the vehicle and take photographs of such vehicle and get the signature of the owner or representative of the owner and the owner shall give a bond that such articles should be produced on furnishing a bond of Rs.7,00,000/-. II. The petitioner/owner shall not change the colour or structure of the vehicle and shall not also dispose of the vehicle till disposal of the case. III. The petitioner/owner shall produce the vehicle before the I/O or concerned authority as and when called for the purpose of investigation or trial. 15. With above observation, this criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant