Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010203742026 2026:GAU-AS:13993 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./489/2026 ASHAD ALI S/O ABDUL MAJID VILLAGE H. NO. 96 CHEPTI RANGIA PS RANGIA DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, R HUSSAIN,MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 22.09.2026 Heard Mr F Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed or setting aside the order dated 27.08.2026, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, in connection with Bazaricherra PS Case No. 19/2026, by which the custody of the vehicle was not allowed to the petitioner. By this application, the petitioner has Page No.# 2/5 also prayed that custody should be given to the petitioner with regard to the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-FC-6316. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.04.2026, an FIR was lodged by one Police personnel, stating inter alia, that on receipt of an information that the vehicle was carrying contraband a naka checking was conducted and at around 10:35 am, on 18.04.2026, a six-wheeler red coloured container body truck bearing Registration No. AS-25-FC-6316 was intercepted and on checking the same, online parcels were unloaded from the truck and it was detected that the same contained two numbers of plywood boxes and on opening the same, huge quantity of illegal brand of cough syrups were found. The Police personnel had arrested the driver and helper of the said vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the day of lodging of the FIR, i.e., on 18.04.2026, a truck was seized and was kept in the Police Station since then. He submits that an application for custody of the said truck, was filed before the Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, and the learned Court vide order dated 27.08.2026, had rejected the said application on the ground that the Police had submitted a report that the vehicle is required for investigation and that the release will affect the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is no longer res integra that the articles seized in connection with any criminal offence should be given in custody to the owner or to the person from whom it was seized as soon as possible by the Magistrate and that the said articles should not be kept in the Police Station or any other place for long as the Page No.# 3/5 same would result in destruction of the said articles. He, as such, submits that the said truck was seized in the month of April, 2026, and now, it is September, 2026, and the said truck should be given in custody to the owner. He further submits that the petitioner is the owner of the truck and he had given the truck to the Blue Dart Courier Service, Guwahati, on rent and that the said Company uses the vehicle for taking the online items and machinery articles. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the income that comes from the truck is the source of his livelihood and the same be given in custody to him. 5. Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that a Police Report be called for, in order to see, as to whether the said truck is required for any further investigation of the case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also gone through the record. 7. It is the settled position of law that the articles seized by the Police in connection with any criminal case should not be kept for long in the Police Station or any other place since the same would get damaged with time. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai –Vs- State of Gujarat; reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the Police Station for a long period. It has been directed by the Apex Court that the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately after taking necessary bond and guarantee as well as the Page No.# 4/5 security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. It is also held that in case, the vehicle is not claimed by the owner or the Insurance Company or by any third person, then such vehicle be ordered to be auctioned by the Court, but at no point of time, it was directed to keep the said vehicles in the Police Stations for a long time. It is also directed that the Court should pass such orders within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. The Apex Court had also directed that before handing over the possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicles should be taken and detailed Panchnama should be prepared. 8. In the instant case, it is seen that the truck was seized on 18.04.2026 and almost 5 months have elapsed since the said seizure and the truck is lying in the Police Station, resulting in damage. It is also seen in the instant case, that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the documents pertaining to the same have been annexed with the criminal revision petition. The Registration Certificate annexed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner, namely, Ashad Ali is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25 FC 6316 and the registration is valid upto 18.12.2026. As such, this Court directs the Investigating Officer of Bazaricherra PS Case No. 19 of 2026 to hand over the custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25 FC 6316 to the petitioner, after complying with the conditions as mentioned by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). The Investigating Officer is directed to take photographs of the said vehicle and to prepare a detailed panchanama. Page No.# 5/5 The Investigating Officer is also directed to take appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle. The Investigating Officer is also at liberty to take other documents with regard to the ownership of the said vehicle. The Investigating Officer is also given the liberty to prescribe any other conditions before handing over the said vehicle to the petitioner. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 27.08.2026, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, stands set aside and quashed. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant