Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010100542026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./280/2026 MD MASPI HUSSAIN S/O SAMSUDDIN AHMED R/O NEAR 21, AMAR NATH PATH, NEAR MASZID, AMONISHALI, BAGARIGURI DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM PIN -782103 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MS. N PODDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 26.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application under Sections 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Maspi Hussain, impugning the orders dated 23.03.2026 as well as 28.04.2026, passed by the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon in Raha P.S. Case No. 29/2026, whereby the prayer for grant of zimma from the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-02-EC-4777 (Bolero Maxx) was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of an FIR filed by one Inahoka Zhimo on 23.02.2026, inter-alia, alleging that the son of the petitioner has taken an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the informant for selling the vehicle of the petitioner, the Raha P.S. Case No.29/2026 under Section 318(4)/316(2) of BNS, 2023 was registered. 4. The learned counsel the petitioner has submitted that in the aforesaid case, the above-mentioned vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized and the same is now lying in Raha Police Station for last three months. He submits that though, he had filed zimma application before the Trial Court on two occasions and he has also produced the certificate of registration, which is in the name of present petitioner and other documents before the Trial Court. 5. However, the Trial Court without considering the said documents mainly on the basis of report of the Investigating Officer had rejected the claim for zimma of the seized vehicle. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed the certificate of registration and other documents along with this revision petition and Page No.# 3/5 has prayed that considering the fact that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner is lying under open sky for the last three months. The same may be granted zimma as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of “Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat” reported in 2002 (9) SCC 283. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer at this stage and has submitted that since the Trial Court has rejected the prayer for zimma on the basis of report of the Investigating Officer hence, a report may be called for from the Investigating Officer of the Raha P. S. Case No.29/2026. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of Annexure-8 to the instant revision petition, which is the certificate of registration, it appears that the seized vehicle has been registered in the name of present petitioner, namely, Md. Maspi Hussain hence, prima facie it appears that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. 10. It also appears that in the instant revision petition, which is supported by affidavit, the petitioner has contended that he had produced all the documents of ownership before the Trial Court. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that Trial Court has not made any whispers about production of said documents by the petitioner, rather it has rejected the prayer for zimma on the basis of the report of Investigating Officer, where it has been stated that the petitioner has Page No.# 4/5 not produced any valid document relating to ownership of the seized vehicle. 11. As from certificate of ownership, it is apparent that the certificate of registration annexed along with this revision petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and as in case of seizure of the vehicle in connection with criminal cases, the Apex Court has observed in the case of “Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat” (Supra) that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle in police stations for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond as well as security for return of the said vehicle if required at any point of time. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that retaining the seized vehicle in police station would be of no use at this stage, if same can be produced by the petitioner for the purpose of investigation as and when required. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and it is directed that the Investigating Officer of Raha P.S. Case No. 29/2026 shall give the zimma of the seized vehicle to the petitioner on his furnishing a bond of Rs.8,00,000/- undertaking therein that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle if and when required for the purpose of investigation as well as in the trial. 14. At the time of giving the zimma of the said vehicle, a proper zimmanama shall be prepared as well as inventory of the vehicle shall also be prepared. The Investigating Officer shall also take Page No.# 5/5 photographs of the vehicle from different angles and keep the same along with the case record. 15. With the above observation, this Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant