Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030000552026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./2/2026 Smt. Lalbiakdingi D/o Vanlalnghaka, Falkland Veng, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. Aizawl2:The Officer-in-Charge Bawngkawn Police Statio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalramdinthara Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 10.03.2026 Heard Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State. 2. By filing the present petition under Section 438 read with Sections 422 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner assails the legality and validity of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl Page No.# 2/4 (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 61/2025 arising out of S.R. No. 48/2025, whereby the application seeking interim release of the seized vehicle, i.e., Maxi Cab (Sumo) bearing Registration No. ML-04-B-8580, to the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she had filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking interim custody of the said vehicle, which was seized on 13.12.2025 in connection with the subject criminal case. However, the said prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that one Ms. Jasmine Amanda Talang is the registered owner of the said vehicle and her application for release of the vehicle had already been allowed. 4. Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner, submits that Ms. Jasmine Amanda Talang had already sold the said vehicle to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 31.07.2024, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the instant petition, and that the seized vehicle is still lying in the custody of the jurisdictional police station, as the whereabouts of said Ms. Jasmine Amanda Talang are not traceable. In the aforesaid premises, he seeks release of the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who has already purchased the vehicle from her. 5. Per contra, Ms. Linda, learned PP, Mizoram, submits that there is no challenge to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 27.03.2025 allowing custody of the seized vehicle in favour of Ms. Jasmine Amanda Talang upon verification of the documents, including the sale deed dated 31.07.2024 relied upon by the petitioner. She accordingly submits that, in the absence of any challenge to the said order dated 27.03.2025, the present petition is not Page No.# 3/4 maintainable. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, it appears that the custody of the seized vehicle has already been given to Ms. Jasmine Amanda Talang by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 29/2025 vide order dated 27.03.2025. The aforesaid order has not been challenged by the petitioner before this Court till date. 7. The order under challenge before this Court is the order dated 05.08.2025 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner seeking custody of the seized vehicle on the ground that the same had already been released in favour of the registered owner, Ms. Jasmine Amanda Talang, pursuant to the earlier order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 29/2025. The said order dated 27.03.2025 has admittedly not been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. It further appears that while considering the petitioner’s claim based on the sale deed dated 31.07.2024, the learned Trial Court entertained doubt as to its authenticity on the ground that the said document is neither registered nor notarized. 8. In view of the above factual position, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that the scope of interference in criminal revision is limited and this Court would interfere only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, manifest error of law, or results in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, none of these contingencies are made out. Page No.# 4/4 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 10. The necessary fee of Rs. 7,500/- shall be paid to Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner, by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority. JUDGE Comparing Assistant