Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010062832024 2025:GAU-AS:6116 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./345/2024 NITUL DAS S/O LATE BIREN DAS, R/ OVILL- SARANGKUCHI, P.S.-JAGIROAD, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BORAH, MS. B M LAHKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 16.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Page No.# 2/3 Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in respect of Jagiroad P. S. Case No.300/2023. 3. An Alto VXI car bearing registration No.AS-01-EV-7181 and one Samsung Galaxy F23 (5G) mobile phone was seized in connection with the aforesaid case. The petitioner being the registered owner of the said vehicle and the mobile phone filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon seeking custody of the said objects. 4. The learned Court below refused to the said prayer on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who commits forgery in respect of Government documents and earned money by committing forgery of Government documents. 5. The learned Court below suspected that the accused might have purchased the said vehicle and the mobile phone from the money he earned by perpetrating fraud upon innocent people. 6. Today, the Investigating Officer has also sent a letter to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor objecting to the prayer of zimma. The Investigating Officer also stated that the petitioner might have purchased the vehicle and the mobile phone from the money he had earned by perpetrating fraud from innocent people. 7. According to the Investigating Officer, if the seized vehicle and the mobile phone are given in custody of the petitioner, it will encourage the petitioner to commit more such offences in future. 8. The report from the Investigating Officer shall form a part of the record. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. Page No.# 3/3 10. The grounds on which the prayer for custody of the vehicle and the mobile phone was rejected by the Trial Court seems to be unreasonable, if an offence against the person is proved in a Court of law, he will be punished according to the procedure as laid down by law. But keeping his vehicle in custody will not serve any purpose to that effect. 11. Therefore the impugned order is set aside. 12. The vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-EV-7181 and the Samsung Galaxy F23 (5G) mobile phone shall be given in custody of its registered owner on verification of all documents. 13. With the aforesaid direction, Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant