Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010163632026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./396/2026 GURPREET SINGH SON OF NIRMAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF BADALI, PS- KHARAR, DIST- MOHALI, PUNJAB VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, PANBAZAR, GHY-01 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 13.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Page No.# 2/4 Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. In this petition, under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 30.05.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Zimma Petition No.108/2026, arising out of Khatkhati P.S. Case No.10/2026. Notably, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2026, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of his Truck, bearing Registration No.PB-65AN-1277, and cash of Rs.44,860/-. 3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.PB-65AN-1277 and the said vehicle was seized by police, while the petitioner was travelling in the said vehicle on 23.01.2026, by S.I. Debasish Borah of Khatkhati P.S., on account of recovery of 2.026 kg of Opium, which was kept concealed inside the cabin of his Truck. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and that he will produce the vehicle before the Court as and when required and that the learned Trial Court has rejected the petition on the ground that the vehicle may be required for confiscation at the end of trial and that the impugned order dated 30.05.2026, is illegal, and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner, who will produce the vehicle before the Court as and when directed. And under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has vehemently opposed the petition. Referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, especially to paragraph Nos.33 and 34, he submits that the case of the petitioner falls under the first category of cases enumerated in paragraph No.33 and as such, the vehicle cannot be released in favour of the petitioner at this stage and that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this Court and therefore, he has contended to Page No.# 3/4 dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Dey (supra), especially in paragraph Nos.33 and 34, which are extracted herein below:- "33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused. 34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated." 6. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehice and he is one of the accused in the Khatkhati P.S. Case No.10/2026, and that the contraband substances were recovered from the seized vehicle, wherein the present petitioner was travelling and as such, his case falls in the first scenario, of the 4 scenarios, described in paragraph No.33 and in view of the observation made in paragraph No.34, the vehicle cannot be released in favour of the present petitioner. 7. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Dey (supra), and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds that the same suffers from no infirmity Page No.# 4/4 or illegality requiring any interference of this Court and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE