Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010006092025 2025:GAU-AS:751 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./16/2025 URMILA TAMULI C/O SRI BIREN TAMULI R/O VILL- BONPUROI LATABARI, P.S. NARAYANPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:HAREN GOGOI HUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE HAWAJAN POLICE OUT POST. P.O. AND P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P HAZARIKA, TUN RAJKHOWA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 24-01-2025 1. Heard Mr. T Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. The present criminal petition is filed under section Page No.# 2/4 438/442 read with section 528 of BNSS, 2023 assailing an order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali in Special Sessions Case No.1/2024, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner seeking zimma of mobile handset i.e., OPPO F 23 5G having IMEI No.864647062897874 along with one sim No.9395669638 which was seized in connection with Gohpur PS Case No.132/2024 u/s 61(2)/316(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023 and sections 21(1)(2)(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. 3. It is seen that the petitioner filed an application seeking zimma of the aforesaid mobile. On the basis of such application, the learned Judge called for a report from the concerned investigating officer. 4. It is reflected in the order that the police has submitted report to the effect that the said articles i.e., the mobile phone is not required for further investigation, however, taking note of the fact that charges have not been framed, the learned Judge has refused to grant the zimma. 5. In the considered opinion of this court, such course of action is not permissible under law and also against the settled proposition of law as laid down in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. However, unfortunately the learned Judge either ignored such settled proposition of law or is not aware of such settled proposition of law, inasmuch as the investigating authority itself submitted that for further investigation the aforesaid mobile Page No.# 3/4 handset is not required. 6. It is recorded herein that in Sundar Bhai Ambalal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following propositions of law: I. That the application for zimma of seized material shall be dealt expeditiously and judiciously with the object that the owner of the seized article should not suffer for it being remaining unused or by its misappropriation; II. The Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 17 observed that whether the situation be, it is of no use to keep the materials more particularly seized mobile at the police station for a long period. 7. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, this court in the given facts of the present case is of the view that the seized mobile be released to the registered owner subject to the following conditions: I. A proper panchnama of the mobile be prepared and photographs of such mobile be taken and the signature of the owner or representative of the owner also be taken therein and the owner shall give a bond that such article should be produced. II. The petitioner/owner shall not change the colour or structure of the mobile and shall not also dispose of the mobile till disposal of the case,. III. The petitioner/owner shall produce the mobile Page No.# 4/4 before the I/O or concerned authority as and when called for the purpose of investigation or trial. 8. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant