Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010031262025 2026:GAU-AS:12820 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./328/2026 MD. RAFIKUL ISLAM S/O NUR MAHMAD, R/O CHAMATA PATHAR (CHAUMATAPATHAR), P.O.- SONAPUR, P.S.- SONAPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 782402. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N Z CHOUDHURY, MR. N ALI,MR. S ABDULLAH,MR. A R BHUIYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 03-09-2026 1. Heard Mr. N. Z. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the sole respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. The present petition under Section 438 read with Sections 442/ 528 of the BNSS, 2023, is directed against the judgment dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 12(2)/2023, whereby the appeal preferred against the rejection of zimma application was allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released on zimma subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/-apart from other usual condition. 3. In the present revision petition, the petitioner challenges the condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee for releasing of vehicle. 4. The facts are in a narrow campus. 5. The petitioner is the registered owner of a 12 wheeler Truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-FC-8243. On 12.07.2022, around 01:00 am, the said vehicle was seized along with 24 cattles near Dholpur Police Out-Post, Lakhimpur. The seizure was recorded vide M.R. No.133/2022 in connection with Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 129/2022, corresponding to GR Case No. 749/2022 registered under Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021( the Act, 2021, in short). 6. The petitioner’s zimma application being Zimma Petition No. 479/2023 was rejected by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur on 02.03.2023. In the aforesaid Criminal Appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, by judgment dated 12.05.2023, directed to release the vehicle on zimma subject to inter alia furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 7. Therefore, the question arises before the Court for consideration is whether while directing to release the vehicle on zimma under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Appellate Court was justified in putting a condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- for such release. Page No.# 3/4 8. The issue is no longer res-integra. In Mujibur Rahman Vs. State of Assam (Crl. Rev.P. No. 143/2024), decided on 22.05.2024, this Court considered the scope of Section 11(5) of the Act, 2021 and held that the prescription of a bank guarantee under the said provision relates to the statutory stage of seizure and release contemplated under Section 11(3), Section 7(14) and Section 11(4) of the Act, 2021. Where a custody of the vehicle is sought during enquiry or trial under Section 451 and Section 457 CrPC, the matter is governed by Chapter XXXIV of the CrPC and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai –Vs- State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 9. The said principle was reiterated by this Court in Abhijit Saikia Vs. the State of Assam (Crl. Rev. P. No. 217/2024), decided on 07.06.2024, where a condition requiring bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the vehicle was set aside and zimma was granted subject to appropriate safeguards. 10. In the present case also, the learned Appellate Court had already exercised its power of jurisdiction to release the vehicle on zimma. The requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- cannot be sustained merely invoking the prescription contains in Section 11(5) of the Act, 2021. At the same time adequate safeguards can be imposed to ensure the production of the vehicle during investigation or trial. The purpose of such custody is not defeated by taking an appropriate bond and requiring preservation of the identity and the condition of the vehicle. This approach is also consistent with the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). 11. Accordingly, the conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in the judgment dated 12.05.2023, requiring the petitioner to furnish of a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- is hereby interfered with. 12. The order of directing release of the vehicle shall remain operative subject to Page No.# 4/4 the following conditions: I. The investigating authority shall prepare proper panchnama of the aforesaid vehicle and take photograph of such vehicle and get the signature of the owner or representative of the owner; II. The petitioner/owner shall give an indemnity bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only for production of the vehicle as and when required; III. The petitioner/owner shall not change the colour or structure of the vehicle and shall not also dispose of both the vehicles till disposal of the case. IV. The petitioner/owner shall produce the vehicle before the I/O or concerned authority as and when called for the purpose of investigation or trial. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the criminal case or the legality of seizure of the vehicle. These questions, if arise for consideration, are left open. 14. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant