Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010175182026 2026:GAU-AS:13905 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./419/2026 SANIDUL ISLAM S/O AMJAD ALI, VILLAGE NO. 2, BHANDARA, P.O. BHANDARA, P.S. AND DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BIKASH DIHINGIA SUB-INSPECTOR BARPETA ROAD POLICE STATION DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Page No.# 2/4 Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondents. 2. Order dated 15.07.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Barpeta, in Barpeta Road P.S. Case No.40/2026, is challenged in this criminal revision petition under Section 438/442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.AS-01GK-6065 (Mahindra Bolero), which was seized by police in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No.40/2026, under Section 318(2)/318(4)/179/180 of BNS, read with Section 21(b)/22(c) of the NDPS Act and that after the seizure, the petitioner herein had filed one application before the learned Trial Court seeking custody of the aforementioned vehicle. But, the learned Special Judge, vide impugned order, dated 15.07.2026, had rejected the petition on the basis of a report submitted by the Investigating Officer to the effect that the vehicle was allegedly used for transporting narcotic drugs and that the owner of the vehicle is suspected to be involved in the commission of the offence and the investigation is still going on and if the vehicle is released at this stage, there is reasonable apprehension of the same being used again in commission of similar offences that may adversely effect the ongoing investigation and that the seized vehicle is already a material exhibit, connected with the case and its custody is essential for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, considering the report, the learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 15.07.2026 has dismissed the petition. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the vehicle is no way involved with the offence alleged and the same was seized from the rented house of the petitioner and that nothing has been recovered from the vehicle and also from the possession of the present petitioner and he will produce the same before the Court as and when necessary and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 15.07.2026. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional P.P. has opposed the petition. Producing Page No.# 3/4 the case diary before this Court, Mr. Sarma submits that there are sufficient materials to show involvement of the said vehicle with the offence alleged in the FIR and if the same is released at this stage, then it would adversely affect the investigation of the case. 6. 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 impugned order dated 15.07.2026. 7. It appears that the learned Special Judge has dismissed the petition on the basis of the police report, which indicates involvement of the vehicle in transporting contraband substances and the police also suspected involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence. It is to be noted here that while dealing with releasing of the vehicle seized in connection with the NDPS Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, in paragraph Nos.33 and 34 held as under:- “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. Page No.# 4/4 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.” 8. In the instant case, having perused the case diary produced before the Court today, this Court finds that the present case does not fall in any of the four scenario mentioned in the aforementioned case, not to speak of the first and second scenario described in the aforementioned decision. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 9. It is provided that on furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.12,00,000/-, the seized vehicle be released in the custody of the petitioner subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle to any person; (ii) The petitioner shall not change the nature and character of the vehicle during the pendency of the case; (iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the learned Court below as and when directed; (iv) The vehicle shall not be used in commission of any other offence. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE