Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010168412025 2026:GAU-AS:4830 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./306/2025 SOFIUR ISLAM S/O AYNAL HOQUE VILL- AMGURI P.S. BIJNI DISDT. CHIRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SI BISHAL GORSHAI I/C NORTH GUWAHATI P.S. DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H ALI, MS A DAS,MR. R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 01-04-2026 (Pranjal Das, J.) Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakhur, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is invoking the provisions under section 438/442 of NSS, 2023. The petitioner herein, namely Sofiur Islam is aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Page No.# 2/7 connection with NDPS Case No. 07/2025 u/s 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act whereby the prayer of the petitioner for interim custody of the seized vehicle (Mahindra Bolero) bearing Registration No. AS 01 FZ 7976 was rejected. 3. It may be mentioned here that on 27.12.2024 one SI(P) Bishal Gorshal lodged an FIR with the information that there was some consignment of narcotics from Dimapur in a Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No AS 01 FZ 7976. A naka was led subsequently, but the vehicle could not be detected. Thereafter, information was received that the traffickers were occupying Room No. 309 and 207 of Hotel Chirom Palace and upon going there and searching the vehicle 32 soap boxes/packages weighing 368 grams of suspected heroin was found in a blue bag were seized along with the four accused persons, including the present petitioner, Sofiur Islam. Some other articles were also seized and the case was registered as North Guwahati P.S Case No. 173/2024 u/s 21(c)/29 NDPS Act. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge- sheet against four accused persons, including the petitioner under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. 4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said Mahindra Bolero vehicle which was seized as stated above and presently stated to be lying in the Police Station campus, ever since seizure from 28.12.2024 itself. A copy of the registration certificate has been annexed with the petition, indicating the owner's name as Sofiur Islam. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no purpose will be served by keeping the vehicle in the Police Station and that it would only be subjected to deterioration and in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be in the interest of justice to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. It is also submitted that in this regard that he shall Page No.# 3/7 abide by any conditions imposed upon such release. 6. I have perused the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey -Versus- State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025 and referred to paragraph-29 & 30 thereof. 7. In the said decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law with regard to granting of custody of the vehicle vis-a-vis NDPS cases. The Court has laid down four scenarios and course of action to be taken with regard to each of them. The paragraphs-29 & 30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra) which were also referred to by the learned Trial Court may be reproduced herein below; “29. 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. 30. 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 Page No.# 4/7 superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused- owner. 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in Denash -Versus- State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2025 INSC 1258 and submits that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that the stipulation in Denash (supra) are not absolutely binding and that in a particular situation, there can be departure from the same. The relevant paragraph-34 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be reproduced herein below; “34. Although, on a superficial reading, the present case might appear to fall within the second scenario delineated in Bishwajit Dey (supra), where contraband is recovered from the owner’s agent (driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however, the application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or mechanical formula. Each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present matter, a holistic consideration of the record reveals that the facts do not align strictly with the said category for the following reasons: - Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025 i- Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with valid documents, and the vehicle was commercially engaged in transporting a valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron sheets. It is highly improbable to believe that he would risk both the costly vehicle and the high value consigned goods and his business goodwill by knowingly allowing narcotics to be transported along with the cargo. ii- Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of Ganja was Page No.# 5/7 recovered from the four charge-sheeted accused persons. iii- Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused and the charge-sheet contains no material suggesting that the appellant had knowledge of or connived in the offence. iv- It can thus, safely be presumed that the said contraband must have been procured by the drivers and/or the khalasis without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant.” 9. On the other hand, Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the impugned order submits that that the case of the petitioner herein is squarely covered by the Scenario No. 1 laid down in the decision of Bishwajit Dey (supra) in which the owner of the vehicle is also an accused and from whose possession the contraband has been recovered. 10. The learned Addl. P.P submits that in view of the said principle and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such scenario, the vehicle may not be released on interim custody till reverse burden is discharged by the accused or not. That, the learned Court below has rightly applied the principle and passed a correct order refusing the prayer for zimma. 11. I have given my due consideration to the submissions and perused the relevant materials. Bishwajit Dey (supra) is the governing law on the subject and as stated in paragraph-4, four scenarios have been envisaged. In the instant case, as per the prosecution case laid forth so far, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle from which the contraband in the form of commercial quantity of suspected heroin is said to have been recovered and he along with others were apprehended from a hotel room in the aforementioned hotel. Therefore, it is true that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the contraband is prima facie seized from the Bolero vehicle owned by him as per the prosecution case and as narrated in the charge-sheet. Page No.# 6/7 12. Now the question is whether the reverse burden mentioned in the said condition narrated in the paragraph-30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra) has been fulfilled in the instant case. 13. I have carefully perused the narration in the charge-sheet and also the report submitted by the I.O during the proceeding. From the materials, it is indicated that the investigation has found the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence and on the basis of the same, he has been sent up for trial under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. 14. It is contended that by the prosecution through the investigation material that the petitioner has conscious possession of the contraband which was found in his vehicle. 15. Now the next aspect is to whether the decision of Denash (supra) makes any departure from the principles laid down in paragraph-30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra). It may be mentioned herein that both the decisions are of equal coran. The relevant paragraph-34 of Denash (supra) has already been reproduced above. 16. Upon carefully perusing the narration therein, I find that in that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to grant relief to the owner even though the contraband was seized from the vehicle but on its facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court accepted the possibility that the contraband might have been carried by the driver without the knowledge of the owner. 17. In my considered opinion, the decision in Denash (supra) does not really conflict with the decision in Bishwajit Dey (supra). Rather the decision passed therein was distinguishable on facts and was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein the benefit of doubt perse was found Page No.# 7/7 justified to be given to the owner. 18. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, upon perusal the impugned order, the contention of the prosecution narration in the charge-sheet and the report, I am unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity or otherwise involving any wrong application of the law. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 has correctly applied the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra). Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in connection with NDPS Case No. 07/2025 u/s 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act is hereby upheld and confirmed and thereby the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. 19. This Court would like to make an observation that as the interim custody could not be granted by giving the relief in this revision petition therefore, the authorities of the concerned Police Station where the vehicle is kept will ensure that the vehicle is maintained properly and not allowed to deteriorate due to elapse of time. 20. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 21. This order passed in criminal revision petition may not be a bar in the future for the petitioner as the owner of the vehicle to prefer the zimma petition before the learned Trial Court, especially, if there is delay in the trial. JUDGE Comparing Assistant