Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010166702026 2026:GAU-AS:12131 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1115/2026 MD MIZANUR RAHMAN SON OF ABDUL HAKIM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VHOJKHOWA CHAPORI, P.S. TEZPUR, DISTRICT SONITPUR, ASSAM. PIN 784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:OFFICER IN CHARGE GINGIA P Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S U AHMED, MR. A S TAPADER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 24.08.2026 Heard Mr A S Tapader, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assa. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 and Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.06.2026, by which the Sessions Judge, Biswanath had reduced the amount of bank guarantee, that was directed to be obtained by the Investigating Officer from an Page No.# 2/3 amount of Rs. 5 lacs, which was ordered by the JMFC, Biswanath in Gingia PS Case No. 24/2026, to an amount of Rs. 2 lacs. However, the revisional Court, by order dated 20.06.2026, had further directed that apart from the Rs. 2 lacs bank guarantee, the petitioner was directed to furnish surety/bond of remaining amount of Rs. 3 lacs to the Investigating Officer/concerned authority. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle which was given in zimma to him, i.e., Mahindra Maxi Truck T-2, in the year 2025, after paying an amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the erstwhile owner. The learned counsel further submits that the vehicle was the source of livelihood for the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner had financial constraints and as such, he did a third party insurance with the Insurance Company, and by annexing the Insurance certificate, the learned counsel has shown that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 2090/- to the Insurance Company. The learned counsel submits that a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs was beyond his capacity and as such, although the zimma or custody of the vehicle was given to him, but he could not get the vehicle in custody during the pendency of the trial for non-fulfillment of the said condition. He, accordingly, submits that the bank guarantee be reduced from the said amount of Rs. 2 lacs. 4. Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that Rs. 2 lacs as bank guarantee for a commercial vehicle is very reasonable amount and that the revisional Court had reduced the bank guarantee from Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs. She has, therefore, vehemently objected to the reduction of the bank guarantee from Rs. 2 lacs 5. However, it is a settled position of law that if the conditions are rigorous and the petitioner is unable to fulfill the same, the said condition be made less rigorous, so that the petitioner is able to get the relief that is given to him. Giving an order to the petitioner and taking it back by assigning harsh conditions is almost giving no order to the petitioner. A copy of the Insurance Certificate shows that the petitioner has given Rs. 2,090/- in the shape of a third party insurance to the insurance company and the said Page No.# 3/3 Insurance covers a period till 13.02.2027. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed pleadings at Paragraph-9, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is unable to pay the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs due to severe financial constraints, resulting in continued detention of the vehicle. The petitioner has also pleaded that the condition imposed was excessively onerous and the said condition has denied the benefit of interim custody granted by the Courts below. 7. In view of the said facts, it is, therefore, directed that the condition imposed by the revisional Court to the effect that the IO would obtain a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs is reduced to an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. However, the remaining conditions ordered by the first Court, i.e., Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the revisional Court would remain the same. 8. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant