Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010040922025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./244/2025 MD MOFIDUL ISLAM AND ANR. S/O RAFIQUL ISLAM R/O VILL-GERUA MUKH GERUATI BAZAR, P.S. SAMAGURI DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 2: MD ARIFUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL AWAL R/O VILL-GERUA MUKH GERUATI BAZAR P.S. SAMAGURI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T CHUTIA, MS S NASRAT Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Md. Mofidul Islam and Md. Ariful Islam by impugning the order dated 13.11.2024 passed in connection with case Baithalangso P.S. Case No. 52/2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hamren, West Karbi Anglong, whereby the prayer for grant of zimma of the vehicle seized in the aforesaid case was allowed subject to furnishing of bank guarantee of the market value of the aforesaid vehicles. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the vehicles, i.e., vehicles bearing Registration No. AS-01-SC-3654, which belongs to the petitioner No. 1, Mofidul Islam and the vehicles bearing Registration No. AS-02-DC-4211, which belongs to the petitioner No. 2 were seized in connection with Baithalangso P.S. Case No. 52/2024 on 29.10.2024 as it was alleged that the said vehicles were utilized for transporting some cattle in violation of the provisions of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners being the registered owners of the seized vehicles filed petitions for seeking zimma of the seized vehicles before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hamren, West Karbi Anglong. 5. On receipt of the said petitions, the Court called for the report from the Investigating Officer of the case. Page No.# 3/6 6. In the report, the Investigating Officer had stated that the vehicles which were seized in the said case are no longer required for the purpose of investigation and same may be handed over to their lawful owner. 7. On the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer, the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hamren, West Karbi Anglong allowed the petition for zimma which was filed by the present petitioner. However, while granting the prayer for the zimma, the Court imposed condition in pursuant to the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 by directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the market value of each of the vehicles. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee is too cumbersome for the petitioners and, therefore, in spite of the fact that the impugned order was passed on 13.11.2024, however, even after 5 months of the said order, the petitioners are unable to take the zimma of the said vehicles. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the purpose of furnishing bank guarantee is to ensure that the petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when required during the trial and shall not alienate the same. This purpose can be achieved by imposing other conditions which would bind the petitioners to produce the vehicle if and when required during the investigation. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited the following cases of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the Court has modified the condition of bank guarantee and allowed the zimma of the vehicle seized in those cases by putting other conditions:- Page No.# 4/6 (i) Nekib Ali –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 330/2023 (ii) BS Nargis –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 25/2023 (iii) Abdul Bachi –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Petition No. 1010/2023 (iv) Jakir Hussain –Vs- The State of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1/2025 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with the law of the land and the same does not require any interference by this Court. He submits that Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 provides for release of the seized vehicle in a case involving an offence under the said Act only on furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to the value of the material or the vehicle seized. Hence, he submits that there is no other provision to release the seized vehicle in a case involving an offence under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as also gone through the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the condition of furnishing bank guarantee in those cases were relaxed. 13. Bare perusal of the provision of Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 would show that the purpose of furnishing bank guarantee is to bind the owner of the seized vehicle so that he produces the seized vehicle if and when required for the sake of investigation or for the sake Page No.# 5/6 of trial. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that in case of an extreme difficulty on the part of the owner of the vehicle to furnish bank guarantee, the said condition may be relaxed by the Court. 15. This Court is also of the opinion that if conditions are imposed on the owner of the vehicle so as to bind him so that he produces the vehicle and does not alienate the same during the pendency of the investigation or the trial, the purpose sought to be achieved by Section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act may otherwise also be achieved. 16. Further, in this case, it appears that the order for grant of Zimma of the vehicle was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hamren, West Karbi Anglong on 13.11.2024 and even after 5 months of the said order, the petitioners are unable to take the zimma of the said vehicle due to the financial constraint and their inability to furnish the bank guarantee. 17. In view of above circumstances, this Court, for the ends of justice and considering the inability of the petitioners to furnish the bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the vehicle seized modifies the impugned order as follows:- In lieu of the bank guarantee mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioners are allowed to furnish personal bond of Rs.7 Lakh each, along with a bond of a solvent surety for the same amount as a condition for release of the seized vehicle to the petitioners who are the registered owners of the seized vehicles, subject to the following conditions:- I. The investigating authority shall prepare proper panchnama of the vehicles and take photographs of such vehicle and get the Page No.# 6/6 signature of the owner or representative of the owner and the owner shall give a bond that such articles should be produced on issuing a bond of Rs.8,00,000/-. II. The petitioner/owner shall not change the colour or structure of the vehicle and shall not also dispose of the vehicle till disposal of the case. III. The petitioner/owner shall produce the vehicle before the I/O or concerned authority as and when called for the purpose of investigation or trial. 18. With above observation, this criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant