Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010013402025 2025:GAU-AS:843 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./19/2025 PREM CHAND SHARMA S/O LATEBAIDYANATH SHARMA PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF OLD LAKHIPUR ROAD, MADHURBOND, SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM-788001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T N SRINIVASAN, MR P BHARDWAJ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. T. N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application is filed under Section 397 read with Section 407 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 438 of BNS challenging the Order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sribhumi in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 59/2024. It is submitted by Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present petitioner, Mr. Prem Chand Sharma, who is the authorized person of VRL Logistics Ltd., was granted zimma by the learned Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, Karimganj, vide order dated 08.01.2025. The zimma was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner, as the authorized officer of the company, would have to execute a personal bond before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the concerned police station for an amount equivalent to the market value of the seized vehicle, along with one solvent surety of like amount. Additionally, the petitioner was required to submit proper and original documents to demonstrate his solvency before the I.O. prior to the release of the vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and is presently residing in Silchar only in connection with his employment under the aforesaid company, VRL Logistics Ltd. Therefore, he is unable to satisfy the condition of furnishing one solvent surety while executing Page No.# 3/3 the personal bond as directed by the learned Court below. Thus, he prays for a modification of the condition regarding the furnishing of a solvent surety for the release of the vehicle which remained non-executed till date. On the other hand, Ms. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the petitioner may be directed to submit a personal or indemnity bond equivalent to the solvent surety. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, and I have perused the case record as well as the Order dated 08.01.2025. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the execution of a personal/indemnity bond will serve the purpose of providing surety in lieu of the solvent surety of like amount. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 59/2024 is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner will provide a personal/indemnity bond equivalent to the market value of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. HR-37E/4234 (truck) and on the basis of that, the aforesaid vehicle shall be released to the custody of the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant