Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010078072026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./222/2026 JAHER ALI AND ANR S/O ABDUL SAMAD R/O VILL- PUB LAUSHRER, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM. 2: HUSNARA KHATUN W/O JEHERUL TALUKDAR R/O VILL- PURBALOWASHIER MAJGAON P.O. MAZGAON DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS S AHMED,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 26.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 2. This application under Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jaher Ali, (2) Husnara Khatun, impugning the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, whereby the Zimma of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-BC-0179 as well as AS-01- SC-9199 was given to the present petitioners, who were the owner of the seized vehicle. 3. Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are mainly aggrieved with the quantum of bank guarantee, which is required to be furnished by the petitioners. 4. He submits that the petitioners had purchased both the vehicles in the months of February 2026 and April 2026 respectively only on bank finance and immediately had to pay instalment against the loan by which the vehicles were purchased. 5. He submits that the petitioners are ready to deposit bank guarantee. However, it would be extremely difficult on their part if they are required to pay the same quantum as mentioned by the Trial Court in the impugned order. He submits that if the quantum of the bank Page No.# 3/4 guarantee is modified to a lesser amount, the petitioners are ready to deposit the bank guarantee. He submits that unless the Zimma of the vehicle is taken by the petitioners immediately, there is every possibility of damage being caused to the said vehicles as they are kept under open sky at the Sorbhog Police Station. 6. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent does not oppose the said prayer. However, he submits that the amount may be proportionate to the value of the vehicle. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. 8. The purpose of furnishing a bank guarantee is mainly to ensure that if the vehicles, which were seized in the above noted case, are required for the purpose of investigation or trial, the owner or the person to whom Zimma has been granted would produce the same immediately. However, considering the circumstances, as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, i.e., the vehicles were newly purchased in the months of April 2026 and February 2026 respectively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be cumbersome on the part of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified by directing both the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- each against both the vehicles. In addition to furnishing the bank guarantee, the petitioner shall also furnish by the bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, undertaking therein to produce the vehicle before the Investigating Page No.# 4/4 Officer or before the Trial Court, if and when so required by the Investigating Officer or the Trial Court. 10. With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant