Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118982026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./861/2026 UMAR FARUK ALIAS UMAR FARUQUE S/O ABDUL LATIF, PERMANENT R/O VIL UTTAR KHATOWAL, RUPAHIHAT, PO AND PS RUPAHIHAT, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782124 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MS AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 30.07.2026 Heard Mr. MS. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 528, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Biswanath in Sessions Case No. 52/2026 arising out of Behali PS Case No. 33/2026 by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the zimma petition filed by the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the police personnel have seized his vehicle bearing registration No. AS 02 EC 4768 in connection with Behali PS Page No.# 2/3 Case No. 33/2026 on 19.03.2026. It is stated in the said FIR that 14 numbers of cattles were transported by the said vehicle and the case is registered under Section 303(2)/3(5) of BNS 2023 read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act as well as Section 11(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cattles were also seized and they were given in zimma to the owner of the same. He submit that he has filed an application for custody of the vehicle but the learned trial court had rejected the said application by order dated 15.05.2026. He submits that the learned trial court had held that the valid permit was not there in transporting the cattle with the said truck. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner of the said truck and it has been held by the apex court that the Articles including vehicles which are seized in connection to any offence should not be kept in the police station for long. He submits that the seizure was done 19.03.2026 and since then the truck is lying in the police station. He further submits that petitioner is the owner of the said truck and to substantiate this fact he has placed the registration certificate of the said vehicle wherein it is shown that the petitioner is the owner of the same. 6. Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the charge sheet has been laid in the instant case and the investigation of the said case is complete. He however, submits that without any valid documents, cattles were transported by the said truck. 7. I have gone through the records and I have heard the learned counsels. 8. It is a settled position of law that the vehicles seized in connection with criminal offences should not be kept in the police station for long as it will result Page No.# 3/3 in destruction of the same and as such by a number of decisions, the learned Apex Court has held that the custody of the said vehicle during pendency of the trial of the said criminal offence should be given to the owner or the person from whom it is seized or the insurance company under which the vehicle stands insured. It is further held by the Apex Court that while giving custody of the said vehicle appropriate bond should be taken as well as the photographs and the guarantee for return of the said vehicles as and when it is required by the Court. 9. The Apex Court has held in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 8283 that the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately on seizure of vehicles or other articles by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles if required at any point of time. It is also held that in case the vehicle is not claimed by the owner or the insurance company or by the third person then such vehicle be ordered to be auctioned by the court. 10. In the instant case it is seen that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle bearing registration No. AS 02 EC 4768 and the custody should be given to him and the necessary exercise should be done by the concerned police officer before giving the said custody as mentioned above. 11. As such this application is allowed and the police officer of Behali police station to do the needful and give the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant