Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096522026 2026:GAU-AS:8859 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./692/2026 RAJPAL SINGH S/O LATE INDER SINGH, R/O BARAKH TEH, RESAI, DIST. RESAI, PIN 182311, JAMMU AND KASHMIR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ZONAL UNIT DRUM SHAPE BUILDING I.P. BHAVAN I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI-110002. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE FORCE BADARPUR OPP. TAGORE SCHOOL OF STUDIES BADARPURGHAT KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788803 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, D CHAKRABORTY,A DEY,MS. S. CHANDA,MS. R DEVI,MS. J GHOSH,MS P DAS,MS. U NANDA Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS, SC, DRI :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 19.06.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel representing the D.R.I. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Superintendent CPF, Badarpur in C. No.07/CL/IMP/ARECA NUTS /SIL/PREV/2025-26/10. 3. A vehicle bearing Registration No.JK-08M-8700 was seized in the aforesaid case. The petitioner being the registered owner, prayed for custody of the said vehicle in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear before the customs authority and to apply for release of the said vehicle under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and if the authority is satisfied, the investigating officer may release the vehicle on execution of a bond of ₹30,00,000/-. 5. When the petitioner approached the Superintendent, CPF, Badarpur, another condition asking for payment of a security deposit equivalent to not less that 30% of the value of the vehicle. 6. For the said condition, the present petition has been filed claiming that this order is above the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and is not legally sustainable. Page No.# 3/3 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 8. Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under: “110A. - Any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require.]” 9. A plain reading of the Section 110A of the Act of 1962 shows that the customs authority is legally entitled to put conditions for release of the vehicle. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate gave custody of the aforesaid vehicle on execution of a bond of ₹30,00,000/- but the condition inserted by the customs authority totally frustrates the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. This Court is of the opinion that though the customs authority is entitled to impose conditions under Section 110A of the Act of 1962, it cannot frustrate a lawful order passed by a criminal court. Therefore, the order of the Superintendent, CPF, Badarpur asking for security deposit equivalent to not less than 30% of the value of the vehicle is set aside. 11. The aforesaid vehicle shall be released on taking a bond of ₹30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakh) only. With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant