Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020004582026 2026:GAU-NL:368 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : CRL.REVN/18/2026 MR. THANGDOU HANGSHING S/O LATE JANGJAHREL HANGSHING, PERMANENT R/O HOUSE NO. 7, WARD NO. 6, KANGPOKPI TOWN, KANGPOKPI DISTRICT, MANIPUR. VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND THROUGH THE P.P. NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : PAKINRICHAPBO, Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. Paazü Rosü, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent. 2. By filing the instant application under Section 438/442 and 528 r/w Page No.# 2/5 Section 497 and 503 of the BNSS, 2023, the Petitioner herein has prayed for release of the seized vehicle, a Mahindra Bolero Power Plus, ZLX MH, bearing Registration No. AS03 X1718, Chassis No. MA1XK2WJXJ6C40272 and Engine No. WJJ6C35270. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the aforementioned motor vehicle, which belonged to his deceased son, was taken away from him by the alleged accused in Special Case No. 12/2026 under Section 18(b) of the NDPS r/w Section 3(5), BNS, 2023 and which is pending investigation in Kezocha P.S. Case No. 0001/2026. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that the alleged accused, namely Mohan Chhetry is personally known to him and his family since they reside in the same locality at Kanpokpi Town in Manipur. Since there was no one to drive the vehicle after the death of his son, whenever there was work, the Petitioner used to avail the service of Mohan Chhetry to drive the vehicle to church and to other places. He was unaware that his vehicle had been used by the alleged accused for illegal purpose that led to the seizure of the vehicle and the arrest of the accused person. On 11.05.2026, the alleged accused had approached him requesting to use the vehicle on 12.05.2026 to visit his father-in-law who resides at Mao Gate, Senapati, Manipur and in good faith he had handed over the car to Mohan Chhetry. However, he received information about the seizure of the said vehicle when the alleged accused was arrested on 12.05.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Petitioner had filed a Zimma application before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Page No.# 3/5 Kohima; however, the same was rejected by an order dated 01.06.2026 on the ground that the investigation is in progress and the vehicle is still required for evidence and that release of such seized vehicle should only be in favour of the vehicle’s registered owner. The learned Trial Court was also of the view that there is no certificate of registration transferred in the name of the applicant to enable him to claim ownership of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel, at this stage has made a submission that the Registration Certificate of the seized vehicle shows the name of the deceased son of the Petitioner as the owner. In the Death Certificate of the deceased son also the name of the Petitioner is shown as the father of the deceased. There is no dispute therefore, that the petitioner herein is the father of the registered owner of the vehicle. However, the petitioner could not immediately transfer the Registration Certificate into his name after his son passed away on 09.02.2025. He, therefore, submits that the non-transfer of the Registration Certificate into his name cannot be a ground for rejecting the Zimma application as he is in possession of the vehicle and is the rightful owner upon the demise of his son/registered owner. He, therefore, prays that this Zimma application may be allowed and the vehicle may be released to the Petitioner on Zimma. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi has produced an updated Case Diary and submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has already recorded the statement of the Petitioner and is of the view that he is the father of the registered owner. In fact, learned Public Prosecutor states that the Investigating Officer has also entered in the Case Diary that as per the investigation of the case, the vehicle owner’s Page No.# 4/5 involvement could not be established in this case. Learned Public Prosecutor, has therefore, fairly submitted that the instant petition may be allowed under stringent conditions. 8. This Court has given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels and has perused the pleadings as well as the Case Diary. 9. The Petitioner was examined by the Investigating Officer of the case on 17.06.2026 and on that day his statement had been recorded. The statement of the Petitioner shows that he has stated before the Investigating Officer that he is the father of the registered owner, who has since passed away. He bought the vehicle from Jorhat, Assam for an amount of ₹7,30,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Thousand Only) in the year 2024 and that the alleged accused, Mohan Chhetry was known to him for the past 7 to 8 months. On 12.05.2026, Mohan Chhetry had asked the Petitioner to take the vehicle for going on hire basis towards Nagaland and he was not aware nor had any idea that Mohan Chhetry was transporting illegal items. The Investigating Officer has also noted that as per the investigation the vehicle owner’s involvement could not be established in this case. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to establish that the registered owner of the seized vehicle was his deceased son and that after the demise of his son, he could not transfer the registration in his name. There is also nothing on record established in the Case Diary that some Page No.# 5/5 other owner has raised any claim to the said vehicle. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed on the following conditions: i. Execution of Zimma bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. ii. The Petitioner shall not sell or transfer the vehicle to another person during the pendency of the case. iii. The Petitioner shall not change the colour or appearance of the vehicle. iv. The Petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Investigating Officer or the Court during the investigation as well as during the trial. 11. The instant petition stands disposed of with the above conditions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant