JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 438 /442 of the BNSS , 2023 read with Section 528 of the said Code by the state of Assam, challenging the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Special NDPS Case No. 08/2025 by which the learned Court granted interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with North Guwahati P.S. Case No.142 of 2024 registered under Section 21 (c)/29 of the NDPS Act to the respondent. The instant case commenced with the lodging of the FIR on 19.10.2024 by which it was revealed that on source information that a truck was carrying narcotics from Manipur to Lower Assam to be delivered to one Murtaza Ahmed @ Bhulu, the police at first intercepted a vehicle being a Tata Nexon bearing Registration No. AS01-EN-2486 and on search being made found 49 soap box packet of heroine from the said vehicle and the said vehicle was driven by said Bhulo. On interrogation of said Bhulo, it was revealed that the contrabands were received from one of his accomplices and then the truck, which was carrying contrabands was at parking place at Changsari. Based on the said information, said Bhulo was taken to his rented place and a sac was recovered. The driver of the truck was also apprehended from the parking place wherein contrabands were recovered. It is alleged in the said FIR that Murtaza Ahmed @ Bhulu is the son of the respondent, who has been previously booked in other NDPS cases. The police seized the Tata Nexon vehicle as well as the truck in connection with the said case. The respondent thereafter filed an application before the Court of Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon for zimma of the said vehicle and the learned Court after taking into consideration that respondent was not the accused person in the said case neither she was named in the charge sheet allowed the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on various conditions as required under the law vide order dated 30.05.2025. It is this order that the State of Assam has challenged by filing the instant revision application. 3 . Mr. It is this order that the State of Assam has challenged by filing the instant revision application. 3 . Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the order dated 30.05.2025 is bad in law in as much as the respondent was involved in erstwhile NDPS case and a vehicle was also seized in the same and that NDPS case is numbered as Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 648/2021. He further submits that the same vehicle has been again found to be used in connection with another NDPS case i.e. the present one being North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024. He submits that the said order may be interfered with. He further states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswajit Dey Vs. State of Assam , (2025) 3 SCC 241 had held that there can be four scenarios in which custody is asked for. One of them being when the owner of the vehicle is the person from which the contraband is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner. Third, when the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered. Fourth, when the contraband is seized from the third party. It is held by the Apex Court that in case of first two scenarios, the vehicle may not be released till the reverse burden of proof is discharged by the owner to the effect that the vehicle was used without the knowledge of the owner and as far as the third and fourth scenario is concerned, the vehicle shall normally be released in the interim. 4. Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the vehicle which was given in custody to the respondent was used by her son and contrabands were recovered there from and as such the same comes within the second scenario and as such the vehicle should not have been given in custody to the respondent. Unless, it is proved that the owner did not had knowledge that the vehicle has been used in carrying the contrabands. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Unless, it is proved that the owner did not had knowledge that the vehicle has been used in carrying the contrabands. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is not a case where contrabands were found from the vehicle of the petitioner in the first case in as much as he submits that the contrabands were found from the house of one woman namely Pinki Begum and the vehicle of the petitioner was simply parked outside the said house which was said to be in connection with Hatigaon P.S. as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that the respondent had no connection with the instant case being North Guwahati P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024 and the respondent was not stated to be an accused person in the said case and that the same was reflected in the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 and as such there is no impediment in releasing the vehicle to the respondent. He relied on the decision of Biswajit Dey (Supra) wherein it was held that the vehicle where the contrabands are seized is not required to be kept in the police station till the trial is over. He also relied on an a judgment of Dinesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where in it was held that in cases where the appellant is not arrayed as an accused and the charge sheet contains no material against the appellant that the appellant had knowledge or connive with the offence, the vehicle be given in custody to the appellant. 6. It is seen that the vehicle has been seized from the son of the respondent where in contrabands were found and it is no where mentioned in the FIR or any another connected documents that respondent had connived with her son or had the knowledge that the said vehicle has been used in carrying the contrabands. In the other case registered before the Hatigaon Police Station, it is also not stated therein that the contrabands were seized from the vehicle of the respondent. In the other case registered before the Hatigaon Police Station, it is also not stated therein that the contrabands were seized from the vehicle of the respondent. It is also seen that the respondent is not an accused person in the instant case and her name is no where mentioned as an accused person in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer which has been held by the Trial Court i.e. Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon while allowing the zimma to the respondent. As such, I don’t find any infirmity in the order dated 30.05.2025 by which the vehicle was given in custody to the respondent and after giving custody, the learned Court had given many conditions which is required under the law. 7. Criminal Revision Petition is as such dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. However, one further condition is added to the conditions already put forth by the Court is that if the vehicle is again found in connection of carrying contrabands, necessary order would follow. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition stands dismissed.