Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010042322025 2025:GAU-AS:2272 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./66/2025 RAHUL JOSHI S/O- LAXMI KANT JOSHI, R/O- VILL ACHYUT SRKM ALTAIR B-701, SAWKUCHI, LOKHRA, P.S- GARCHUK, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM- 781040 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S YESMIN, MR K THAKUR,MR D MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 438 and 442 read with Section Page No.# 2/5 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Surbhi Transport Corporation, impugning the order dated 06.12.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in connection with North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 142/2024, whereby the prayer for Zimma of the vehicle seized in the aforesaid case was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01QC9031 was seized in connection with North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 142/2024 under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on 19.10.2024 and since then, it is lying in the campus of North Guwahati Police Station. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one of the partners of “Surbhi Transport Corporation,” which is the registered owner of the seized Truck. 5. In support of his submissions, he has annexed a copy of the Partnership Deed as Annexure-1 to this petition. He has submitted that the petitioner had approached the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon by filing an application seeking Zimma of the seized truck. However, by order dated 21.11.2024, the prayer for Zimma was rejected by the Trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before rejection of the Zimma prayer made by the petitioner, the Trial Court had called for the report from the Investigating Officer, wherein, the Investigating Officer had clearly stated that the vehicle in question is no Page No.# 3/5 longer required for the purpose of the investigation. It also mentions that the present petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that however, the Trial Court erroneously holding that as the seized vehicle is registered in the name of “Surbhi Transport Corporation,” and not in the name of the present petitioner, his prayer for Zimma was rejected. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, he again approached the Trial Court by filing another Zimma application, i.e. Zimma Petition No. 4290/2024. On receipt of the said application, the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon again called for a report from the Investigating Officer and on receipt of the report of the Investigating Officer, the prayer for Zimma was again rejected only on the suspicion that the vehicle of the petitioner may be involved in similar nature of bribes on earlier occasions. At this time, the Investigating Officer had recommended not to release the vehicle. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged to have been involved in North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 142/2024 and his vehicle was utilized for carrying contraband without his knowledge, he is entitled to get the Zimma of the said vehicle. He further submits that as he is one of the two partners of the Partnership Firm, whose name in the vehicle has been registered, he is entitled to get Zimma of the said vehicle. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for Zimma on the ground that the report of the Page No.# 4/5 Investigating Officer on the basis of which the impugned order was passed clearly shows that the vehicle in question is required for further investigation. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on the record. 12. It appears from the materials available on the record that in his report dated 21.11.2024, the Investigating Officer had informed the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon that the seized vehicle is no longer required for the purpose of the investigation and same may be given in Zimma of the registered owner, whereas, contradicting his own earlier report in his second report, the Investigating Officer has stated in his report that the vehicle in question may be involved in other similar cases under the NDPS Act, 1985. It appears that on the basis of the second report of the Investigating Officer, the impugned order has been passed. On perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that same is speculative in nature as merely on the basis of suspicion that the vehicle might be involved in some other similar offences. Same was not given in Zimma, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not a correct approach. 13. As the vehicle in question is lying under the open sky in the campus of North Guwahati Police Station for the last four months without any maintenance, it is likely to get damage. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai-Vs-State of Gujarat” reported in Page No.# 5/5 “(2002) 10 SCC 283,” the Seized vehicle is required to be handed over to the petitioner, who is one of the partner of the Surbhi Transport Corporation,” in whose name the vehicle has been registered subject to following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) with an undertaking to produce the seized vehicle before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required for the sake of investigation. ii. The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle during the pendency of the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall not make any material changes in the vehicle, so as to conceal its identity during the pendency of the investigation/trial. 14. With this observation, this criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant