Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010051942026 2026:GAU-AS:7036 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./361/2026 MD FAIM S/O RABBU R/O 161, CHOUDHERPUR ROAD, SHAHBAZPUR KALAM, SAMBHAL, UTTAR PRADESH-244102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BIMAN CHETIA S/O SRI DHARMENDRA CHETIA SI (P) KHATKHATI POLICE STATION KHATKHATI DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong in Zimma Petition No.24/2026 arising out of N.D.P.S. Case No.86/2025 (Khatkhati P.S. Case No.53/2025) whereby the custody/zimma of one TATA LPT Truck bearing Registration No.UP-38-AT-6178 was rejected. 3. Just behind the speedometer of the truck, commercial quantity of narcotic drugs was kept concealed. 4. Mr. Munir has submitted that the petitioner being the owner of the truck did not have any knowledge about the aforesaid fact. 5. Mr. Borthakur has objected to the submissions made by Mr. Munir. Mr. Borthakur relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are quoted as under: “Broadly speaking there are four scenarios 33. 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, Page No.# 3/3 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. 34. 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 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.” 6. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. The petitioner is the person from whom narcotic drugs was recovered and in that case, the petitioner is not entitled to be given the custody of the seized vehicle. The law is clear on this issue. The prayers for seeking custody of the vehicle is rejected. With the aforesaid direction, the present criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant