Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010207062026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1318/2026 MAKIBUR KHAN SON OF BAHADUR KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUKARPAR, P.O.- KHANGRA, POLICE STATION- SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2:LNK/510 NABA KALITA SON OF MAMAT KALITA RESIDENT OF BALAGAON POLICE STATION- CHHAYGAON DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78112 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN, MR. R KONWAR,MR D PEGU,MR H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 28.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner Page No.# 2/4 has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 10.08.2026 passed in North Guwahati PS Case No.75/2026 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Amingaon by which the prayer of the petitioner seeking custody of the seized articles was rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.07.2026, an FIR was lodged by the police personnel of Chhaygaon Police Station stating inter alia that on an information that one truck was carrying stolen cattles from Adabari to Barynhat, the police personnel intercepted the said vehicle and upon checking found thirteen numbers of bulls been loaded in the said vehicle in a very cruel manner. On the said interception, the police seized both the truck as well as cattle. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the owner of the said cattles submitted an application before the Court of CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon for custody of the said cattles but the Court by order 10.08.2026 had rejected the said application and had not allowed the custody of the said cattles to be given to the petitioner. The main ground for rejection was that the NOC as well as the permission for transportation of the livestock of the cattles were not produced by the petitioner and also the veterinary examination report was not placed by the petitioner. It was further held that prima facie materials regarding cruelty upon the seized cattles were seen and as such, the custody was not allowed. 5. Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on perusal of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer had submitted that the ownership of the said cattles could not be demonstrated before the Investigating Officer by the petitioner and only the purchase receipts would not suffice the said condition. She further submits that no other documents apart from the purchase receipts were placed before the Investigating Officer. She Page No.# 3/4 also submits that neither the NOC nor the transportation documents nor the documents by the Veterinary Doctor were placed and as such she submits that the said cattle may not be given in custody to the petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsels and also have gone through the record. 7. It is a settle position of law that any articles seized in connection with any criminal offence should be given to the owner or to the person from whom it is seized as earlier as possible by the Magistrate in view of the fact that articles will get damaged. In the instant case, it is seen that cattles were seized 13 in numbers and that for keeping the cattles properly and for feeding them properly it is required that the custody should be given to the person who actually looks after it. In the present petition, the purchase receipts are annexed which shows that the cattles were purchased by the petitioner namely Makibur Khan by giving the appropriate consideration to the seller and the said purchases were made in the market situated at Baghbar, Barpeta. It is also seen that receipts were with regard to 13 cattles, which were brought from the same market. 8. The Honble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 had held that articles should be given to the owner as soon as possible by following the guidelines, which were mentioned therein by taking photographs and appropriate panchnama as well as with the undertaking that the owner will produce it as and when required as well as by taking a bond. 9. As such, this Court directs the Investigating Officer to hand over the custody of the cattles to the owner i.e. the petitioner after taking proper photographs, preparing panchnama as well as by taking the undertaking and also by taking a bond from the petitioner. The Investigating Officer is also left Page No.# 4/4 with the liberty to assign any other conditions before releasing the cattle in custody to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 10. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant