Gauhati High Court
Bodiuj Jaman vs The State Of Assam on 28 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010106732025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./591/2025
BODIUJ JAMAN
SON OF MD. FAJAL HOQUE MANDAL
VILL- A KAWATIKA, P.O. KAWATIKA, PART-I,
P.S./SUB-DIVISION- BIJNI
DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM
PIN- 783390
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J PAYENG, MS. SUSMITA DOLEY,MS A PAYENG,MR G
TAKU
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
28.08.2025
Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P.
Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State.
2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for custody of the vehicle i.e.
Page No.# 2/3
Mahindra XYLO E-2 vehicle bearing Registration No.AS 01 AL 5320 which was
seized in connection with Bijni P.S. Case No.15/2025 pending in the Court of
SDJM(M), Bijni, Chirang.
3. The petitioner states that an application for custody of the vehicle was
moved before the concerned Court and vide orders dated 07.04.2025 as well as
30.04.2025 the said prayer was rejected on the ground that the vehicle is
required for examination of the documents as well as to find out the actual
registered owner.
4. Mr. J. Payeng submits that the vehicle is no longer required for any
investigation and as such in view of the various judgments passed by the Apex
Court, there is no purpose in keeping the vehicle in the Police Station and that
the same may be given in custody by complying with the requirements as set
out by the Apex Court. Further, Mr. Payeng has annexed the documents showing
that the petitioner viz., Bodiuj Jaman is the registered owner of the vehicle. The
learned counsel has annexed the Registration Certificate which shows that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and as such he has prayed that the
custody of the vehicle may be given to the petitioner.
5. Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that Charge-
sheet has been submitted in connection with the instant case which shows that
the investigation is over and the vehicle will no longer be required for any
further investigation. Further, it is no res integra that vehicles or any other
articles should not be kept in police custody for long as the same would get
Page No.# 3/3
damaged with the efflux of time.
6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(2002) 10 SCC 283 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is of no
use to keep the seized vehicle at Police Station for a long period and that it is
for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and
guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles if required at any
point of time and it has also been observed that if the vehicle is not claimed by
the owner, Insurance Company or any third person, then such vehicle may be
ordered to be auctioned by the Court.
7. In the instant case it is seen that the petitioner is the registered owner of
the said vehicle and the same needs to be given in custody to the said owner
i.e. the petitioner. However, while handing over the custody, appropriate bond
and guarantee and security should be taken. Further, it is required that the
police before handing over the vehicle to the petitioner may prepare appropriate
panchnama of the same and take photographs of the said vehicle. It is also
observed that the police may put any other condition for safety and security of
the vehicle.
With the above observation, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
