Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./194/2026 JAHIRUL ISLAM BARBHUYAN S/O SAMSUL HOQUE, R/O VILL.- CHANGMAJI PATHAR, PO- MODERTOLI, PS- DOBOKA DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MR. T K BHUYAN,MS K TAYE,MS. M KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. A Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T K Bhuyan appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Dillai P.S. Case No.47/2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 61(2)/123 of the Page No.# 2/3 BNS, 2023. 3. In the aforesaid case, the truck bearing registration No.AS-02-DC-6169 was seized. The present petitioner Jahirul Islam Barbhuyan filed an application before the court of the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu seeking custody of the vehicle. In the said application, the petitioner stated that he had already sold the vehicle to Swarif Uddin and that is why the trial court refused to grant custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. 4. The present petitioner Jahirul Islam Barbhuyan had purchased the said truck after getting the loan from the bank. He was paying the instalments. Thereafter, he had an agreement with Swarif Uddin. As per the agreement, Jahirul Islam Barbhuyan wanted to sell the vehicle to Swarif Uddin and after purchase, Swarif Uddin would be paying the installments. The vehicle in question was not transferred to Swarif Uddin as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter, the petitioner continue to pay the installments. The bank documents are enclosed with the petition in support of the said payment made by Swarif Uddin. 5. Mr. Sarma has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241. Paragraphs 38 and 39 of the said judgment are quoted herein below : “38. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that the vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce. 39. On the contrary, it the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods).” 6. Mr. Borthakur objected to this petition on the ground that huge amount of narcotic drugs was seized from the hidden cavities of the vehicle. According to Mr. Borthakur, the petitioner being the registered owner, had full knowledge about the aforesaid fact. 7. Mr. Sarma has submitted that police has filed the chargesheet against some other persons in this case, but not against the petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. This Court is of the opinion that if the vehicle is kept seized, it will suffer the vagaries of Page No.# 3/3 the weather and its value will be reduced. The vehicle is not yet transferred to Swarif Uddin and as per the documents available in the record, the petitioner Jahirul Islam Barbhuyan is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. 10. Therefore, the Criminal Petition of the petitioner is allowed. 11. The aforesaid vehicle shall be given in the custody of Jahirul Islam Barbhuyan on taking a bond of Rupees 2 lakhs. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant