Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010162472026 2026:GAU-AS:12145 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./392/2026 SMTI PHULMATI NARZARY WIFE OF LATE HERAMBA NARZARY,RESIDENT OF HABRUBARI,KOKRAJHAR,DISTRICT KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783370. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, MR A BRAHMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 24.08.2026 Heard Mr. A Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. By this application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order Page No.# 2/5 dated 08-07-2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 5, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in connection with Chandmari PS Case No. 189/2025 under Section 61(2)/103(1) of BNS, 2023, by which the custody application filed by the applicant for taking custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-13- M-5800 was rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of the Chandmari Police Station on 21-07-2025, by one Numol Chandra Gogoi, stating, inter alia, that his grandson, Shri Amit Narzari, went out at around 6 AM on 16-07-2025, saying that he will bring one of his friends from a particular place. 3. The informant further stated that his grandson at around 11 PM reached his daughter's house with his friend, but thereafter, on the next morning, his grandson and the said friend went somewhere without informing anyone. He also stated that although his grandson came in between, but he again left his house, and that thereafter, his grandson did not return. Thereafter, the informant stated that his grandson was found in the Guwahati Medical College Hospital in a death condition, and that thereafter, his grandson died. The police on receipt of the ejhar registered the case as Chandmari PS case 189/2025. In connection with the said case, the police seized one vehicle, i.e. one red colour Mahindra XUV300, bearing registration number AS-13-M-5800 on 05-12-2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the day of seizure, the Page No.# 3/5 said vehicle was in the custody of the police. He submits that the petitioner, being the mother of the owner of the vehicle submitted an application for custody of the said vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(Metro), and the said Court, by order dated 08-07-2026, rejected the prayer on the ground that the said vehicle was directly found in connection with the commission of the offence, and considering the gravity of the offence, the said prayer was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the owner of the said vehicle is the son of the petitioner, namely, Dhan Khungur Narzary, and that the vehicle being kept in the police station should be given in custody to the mother of the owner. He submits that the owner of the said vehicle, i.e., son of the petitioner, is in the rehabilitation centre, and as such, the custody be given to his mother. 4. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that the vehicle was found to be directly connected with the commission of the offence, and since one person had died, the investigation is still on and the said vehicle might be required during the said investigation. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and this Court finds as such, as follows: 6. In the rejection order dated 08-07-2026, it is seen that the Investigating Page No.# 4/5 Officer had reported that the seized vehicle is found to be connected with the commission of the offence, and it was also submitted by the IO that the gravity of the offence is such that the vehicle should not be given in custody. However, the Investigating Officer at no point of time had stated that the said vehicle was required for any further investigation of the case. It is no res integra that articles seized in connection with any criminal offence should not be kept in the police station or in custody of the investigating agency for long, as the same would result in damage of the said article. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that after the seizure of the article or the vehicle, the Magistrate as soon as possible should give in custody of the said article or the vehicle to the owner of the vehicle or from whom it is seized or to the insurance company under which it is insured. It is seen in the instant case that the son of the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, and since he is in the rehabilitation centre, the mother of the owner had come for custody of the said vehicle. 7. It is also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that before giving custody of any article, proper panchnama should be prepared, the bond should be taken and bank guarantee of the required amount should be taken. 8. As such, the Investigating Officer of the instant case i.e. Chandmari PS case 189/2025 is directed to give the custody of the Vehicle to the petitioner Page No.# 5/5 upon a proper inquiry as to the ownership of the said vehicle. The Investigating Officer is directed to look into the aspect as to whether the son of the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and if it is found that he is the owner and he is at present staying at the rehabilitation centre, the vehicle after taking proper panchnama and bank guarantee of a reasonable amount to which the petitioner can afford as well as photographs as required and with the bond that the vehicle should be presented before the Court as and when called for, the Investigating Officer should give the vehicle being Mahindra XUV300, bearing registration number AS-13-M-5800 to the rightful person. 9. Resultantly, the order dated 08-07-2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 5, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati is set aside and quashed. 10. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant