Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010235912025 2025:GAU-AS:14520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./433/2025 ABDUL SALAM S/O- NASIR ALI. R/O - KHEKASHIJALI ASOAFALA, P.S- GOLAKGANJ, P.O- DHEPDHEPI, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM- 783334 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SC, CUSTOMS Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R RONGMEI, M N RONGMEI,D GONMEI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.10.2025 Heard Mrs. R. Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Kakati, learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department. By this application under Section 438, read with Section 422 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for modification/alteration of the impugned Page No.# 2/3 Order, dated 15.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Departmental Case No. 03/CL/NDPS/OPIUM & HEROIN/PREV/SIL/2025-26, dated 20.08.2025, under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985; by which, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond along with a bank guarantee, equivalent to the present value of the vehicle as security. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said impugned Order, dated 15.09.2025, the vehicle, which was seized in connection with the aforesaid case, was given in custody to the registered owner of the said vehicle, i.e., the petitioner. However, while giving the custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner, the learned Court had directed the authorities to verify the original documents and to ascertain the ownership of the vehicle and also directed to execute a bond, along with a bank guarantee, equivalent to the present value of the vehicle as security, by the petitioner. The learned Court had also given a condition that the vehicle shall be produced before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required, and that the petitioner will not change, transfer, alienate, sell or otherwise, dispose of the said vehicle, until disposal of the case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the other conditions are concerned, the petitioner had produced all the original documents for showing his ownership over the vehicle and have complied with the directions issued to him, but as far as the execution of a bond, along with a bank guarantee, equivalent to the present value of the vehicle as security is concerned; the learned counsel stated that the petitioner has not been able to furnish the same due to inability and as such, although there is an order from Page No.# 3/3 the Court for giving the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not been able to avail the same and the vehicle is lying in the Customs Office and is gradually getting damaged. Considering all the aspects and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 and other decisions, this Court deems it fit to modify the order of quasi-bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned Order, dated 15.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Departmental Case No. 03/CL/NDPS/OPIUM & HEROIN/PREV/SIL/2025-26, dated 20.08.2025, is modified and the petitioner is directed to abide by the other conditions imposed upon him, while taking zimma of the TATA LPT 1916/DCR 49 HSD 160 B6M5 BS IV vehicle, bearing registration No. AS-01SC-7662; by furnishing a suitable surety of Rs. 20,00,000/-, instead of bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/-, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant