Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010228742025 2025:GAU-AS:17622 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1250/2025 UTPAL PANDIT SON OF SRI GANGA PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILL AND P.O. MAHISH BATHAN, P.S. PUNDIBARI, DIST. COOCHBEHAR, WEST BENGAL. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR, J DAS,MR B C MUCHAHARY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 18-12-2025 Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2025, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gossaigaon in Cril. Page No.# 2/3 Revn. P. No. 36/2024, whereby the custody of vehicle bearing Registration No.WB-63-B-6004 was rejected and the judgment and order dated 11.06.2024, passed by the learned JMFC, rejected the prayer for custody of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.WB-63-B-6004 seized by the I.O. in connection with Kachugaon P.S. Case No. 04/2024 was upheld. 3. It is submitted further by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel that at the time of dismissing the earlier revision petition, the attorney holder who submitted the application could not produce any documents and on the basis of which, his earlier Zimma petition was rejected. 4. But the present petition has been filed by the registered owner of the vehicle, as he possess the registration certificate in his name apart from other documents. 5. Further, from the submission made by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel it is seen that at the time of filing the present petition, the case was not charge sheeted, but during pendency of the present petition, the case has already been charge sheeted and now the case is registered as Sessions (T-2) 51/2025 and the same is presently pending before the learned Sessions Judge for trial. 6. He further submitted that the vehicle was seized in connection with this case on 06.04.2024 and since then, the vehicle is in the custody of police. In that regard, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that from the order of the revision petition passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge it reveals that there is some dispute in regard to the ownership of the vehicle and it could Page No.# 3/3 not be ascertained, as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle or not. From the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it further reveals that loss of all the documents of the car, they applied for registration certificate, but surprisingly the subsequent registration certificate was also issued on the same day stated to be issued initially. 8. Further, Mr. Sarma submitted that as the case has already been charge sheeted, the petitioner may approach the learned Trial Court/Sessions Judge with a fresh application for zimma of the vehicle in question. 9. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering these aspects of the case, I find that the Trial Court will be the best Court to decide regarding the zimma prayer of the petitioner as to whether the vehicle will be required during the trial or for any other purpose. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition for zimma of the vehicle before the learned Trial Court/ Sessions Judge, if so advised. 11. With the above observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant