Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010207432025 2026:GAU-AS:2318 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1174/2025 SANJUKTA BANERJEE C/O SATYA RANJAN BANERJEE R/O 376 NUTAN PALLY, PURBA PUTIARYSOUTH 24 PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL, PIN-700093. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MUNMI CHUTIA WSI (P) DILLAI POLICE STATION DILLAI DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. A. MEDHI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 17.02.2026 Heard Ms. A. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/5 heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has sought for custody of a vehicle being White Swift Vehicle bearing registration No. WB-02-AG-9632. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong in Zimma Application No. 55/2025. The said vehicle was seized in connection with Dillai P.S. Case No. 40/2025 registered under Section 21©/25/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 61(2)/123 of BNS. 3. Ms. A. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the accused in the instant case i.e., Dillai P.S. Case No. 40/2025. Her complicity is only deduced from the fact that she is the owner of the vehicle from where the contrabands were recovered. As such, she submits that custody of the vehicle can be given to the petitioner by following the various case laws delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. The case started with the lodging of the FIR on 30.07.2025 by the police personnel of Dillai Police Station wherein it was stated that on an information received , a naka checking was executed and one white swift vehicle with the registration No. as stated above was intercepted and during checking of the said vehicle, they noticed the tube on the fuel tank of the vehicle and suspecting that some drugs were inside the same, checked it again and two numbers of Page No.# 3/5 plastic packets of muddy coloured powdery substance were found which was suspected to be morphine. During the said search, the driver was also personally searched and few documents were seized from his possession, such as, driving license, some sim cards, etc. Along with the said driver, another person was also arrested. 5. It was also stated in the FIR, that the driver and the other occupant of the vehicle were carrying contrabands from Manipur and was supposed to be delivered at Guwahati 6 Mile. It is seen that the said vehicle was seized on 30.07.2025, thereafter, the owner of the said vehicle, i.e., the petitioner moved an application for custody of the same to her but considering the report of the Investigating Officer of the case that the articles were found from the black colour tube which was fixed between the fuel tank and the upper part of the body shows that the said vehicle was regularly used for transportation of contrabands to different places and the custody application was rejected vide Order dated 27.08.2025. 6. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however, states that having a secret place between the fuel tank and the upper part of the body can lead to the only conclusion that the same would be used for some illegal purposes and since the vehicle is likely to be used again for transporting contrabands, he objects to the prayer of giving custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. Page No.# 4/5 7. Upon consideration of submissions made by the parties, moreso, on the fact that the petitioner was not present in the vehicle when the contrabands were recovered from the same, neither her complicity was reflected in the FIR that was lodged by the police personnel, this Court deems it fit that the vehicle be given in custody to the petitioner. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, had held that it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the police station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the vehicle should be given in custody to the accused, owner or the Insurance Company or any third person and if it is not claimed by those authorities, the vehicle may be auctioned by the Court. 8. It is seen in the instant case that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. For substantiating the same, the petitioner has annexed the registration certificate of the vehicle which shows that the petitioner is the owner. As such, it is directed that the vehicle be given in custody to the petitioner but before handing over the possession of the vehicle appropriate photograph should be taken and detailed panchnama be prepared. It is also directed that the Investigating Officer should take appropriate bond and guarantee as well as Page No.# 5/5 security for return of the said vehicle as and when required. 9. Petition is disposed of. 10. Further, order dated 27.08.2025, is also set aside and quashed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant