Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010028242025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./41/2025 SAIDUL ISLAM S/O CHIDDIK ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHUYANBARI PATHER, PO FALIHAMARI PATHER, PS LAHARIGHAT, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM 782127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SHARMA, MR N ZAMAN,MR. A K PURKAYASTHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 25.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned Page No.# 2/3 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in respect of Bhuragaon Case No.50/2024. 3. In the aforesaid case, Police seized one JCB bearing registration No. AS-21-M- 5794, which is belongs to the present petitioner. 4. In the FIR, it is alleged that six particular persons who involved in Cyber Crime they allegedly had fake documents like Pan Card, Adhar Card, etc, and by using those false documents, they took benefits from Financial Companies. 5. The Investigating Officer has sent a report stating that for investigation of the said case, the JCB will be required. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR itself alleges commission of Cyber Crime and no mention has been made about the said JCB. 7. According to Mr. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner in such Cyber Crime, the JCB cannot be used by anybody. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force in it. 10. This Court has decided and agreed with him that in a Cyber Crime, the JCB will not serve any purpose during investigation of the Case. 11. The name of the petitioner is also not available in the FIR. 12. The vehicle is a valuable property, therefore the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. 13. The Order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon rejection the custody prayer in respect of the said JCB is set aside. 14. It is hereby directed that on verification of documents relating to ownership the Page No.# 3/3 seized JCB in respect of Bhuragaon Case No.50/2024 shall be given in custody in its registered owner on taking bond of Rs.50,000/-. 15. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant