Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010190032026 2026:GAU-AS:13156 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1246/2026 ALTAB HUSSAIN S/O HUSSAIN ALI, VILLAGE SEDRIKUNA, WARD NO. 10, P.S. AND DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 09.09.2026 Heard Mr H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.07.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Sribhumi, in Special (NDPS) Case No. 45/2025, by which the custody of the vehicle (motorcycle) bearing Registration No. AS-10G-2109 was rejected by the said Page No.# 2/4 Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.05.2025, on an information received by the Police Personnel that one person riding one Bajaj Pulsar bike was carrying some narcotics, held a naka checking and intercepted the petitioner, who was riding the bike. On interrogation of the petitioner, the petitioner admitted that he has concealed inside a bag, contrabands and the same was on his bag 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same date, the petitioner was arrested and his motor cycle bearing Registration No. AS-10G-2109 was seized by the Police. The Police, on receipt of the FIR, conducted the investigation and on completion thereof, had submitted the charge sheet on 31.10.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.042026, passed in Bail Application No. 299 of 2026. He further submits that the petitioner, subsequently, on 21.07.2026, filed an application before the Court of learned Special Judge, FTC, Sribhumi, for zimma of a mobile phone as well as his motor cycle stated above, and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.07.2026, although had granted interim custody of the mobile phone to the petitioner, but in respect of the motorcycle, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner uses the same for transportation of narcotic substances to his local and neighbouring areas. However, the learned counsel submits that the investigation in the instant case has completed and the charge sheet has been submitted and the matter is pending trial before the Special Court, Page No.# 3/4 and as such, he submits that the said motorcycle is not required for any further investigation, and as such, the same should be given in custody to the owner of the same, i.e., the petitioner. 5. Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the petitioner was carrying narcotics substance in the said motorcycle when he was intercepted and the drugs were recovered. He also submits that the contrabands recovered from the petitioner were commercial in quantity. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and I have also gone through the records. 7. It is the settled position of law that articles recovered in connection with any criminal case should be given in custody to the owner or to the person from whom it is seized, as soon as possible by the Magistrate concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, one being Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, had held that keeping the articles or the vehicles for long in the Police Station or any other place serves no purpose and the same is deprecated in view of the fact that the said articles get damaged with time. As such, the learned Supreme Court had directed that the articles should be given in custody to the owner or to the person from whom it is seized, or to the Insurance Company by taking necessary bonds, photographs, the undertaking that the same would be produced as and when it is required during the trial. In the instant case, it is seen that that the motorcycle Page No.# 4/4 was seized on 14.05.2025, i.e., more than a year back and the same has been kept in Police custody. It is also stated that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been submitted and the case is pending trial before the Special Court. It is also stated that the petitioner is the owner of the said motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-10G- 2109. The petitioner, however, has not annexed the documents showing the ownership of the motorcycle with the petitioner. However, in the seizure list dated 14.05.2025, it is stipulated that the said motorcycle was in the name of the petitioner. In the said facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, directed that the Investigating Officer should hand over the said motorcycle to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner establishes his ownership of the said bike by producing relevant documents to the said Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, as such, is directed to follow other process as required and as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., taking photographs, taking a bond and taking an undertaking from the petitioner that he will produce the bike before the Trial Court as and when required. 8. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant