Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8769 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 21 November, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010099122025




                                                                2025:GAU-AS:15838

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./553/2025

            SUMAN SINGH
            S/O BALDEV SINGH
            R/O HOUSE NO. 18, KUNDIL NAGAR
            NEAR MEGHA PLAZA,
            BASISTHA, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-781029, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO),
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:SWMDWM SWARGIARY
             SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

            KHATKHATI POLICE STATION

            KARBI ANGLONG
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                    BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                                           ORDER

21.11.2025

Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 2/8

Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent.

2. By way of this criminal petition the petitioner is seeking, inter alia, quashing of the impugned order dated 08.04.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong in Zimma Petition No.26/2025 arising out of Khatkhati P.S. Case No.18/2025 under Section 17(c) of the NDPS Act, whereby the zimma of the truck bearing registration No.AS 01 NC 4927 was rejected and for granting custody of the said seized truck to the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the said seized truck. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the vehicle of the petitioner was driven by the Driver, namely Sri Bijay Brahma, when the vehicle was seized.

4. The prosecution case as transpired from the FIR dated 23.02.2025 lodged by one Swmdwm Swargiary, S.I. of Police, is that on 23.02.2025 at about 7.30 am during routine naka checking duty on 4 lane in front of Karagaon PP, the informant along with his staff detained the said truck, coming from Dimapur side, which was heading towards Dillai. On thorough search of the detained truck in the presence of independent witnesses and SDPO Bokajan complying the provisions of Section 185 BNSS and Section 50 NDPS Act, police recovered 18 nos. of packets containing jelly like substance suspected to be opium (kani) weighing total 18.108 kgs., which was kept concealed inside speedometer box of the truck behind the steering wheel. Accordingly, the informant seized the recovered contraband along with the vehicle and other articles as well as apprehended the Driver. During spot interrogation, the Driver revealed that he had brought the recovered contraband from Manipur and was supposed to Page No.# 3/8

deliver the same at Guwahati.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after coming to know about the seizure of his vehicle, the petitioner preferred a zimma petition before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, praying for custody of the said vehicle, which was registered and numbered as zimma petition No.26/2025. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong by the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 rejected the said prayer of the petitioner for zimma of the seized vehicle. Situated thus, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

6. Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle owned by the petitioner was seized in connection with the aforesaid case mainly on the ground that the contraband was recovered from the possession of the Driver of the said truck. He further submits that the said truck is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the case and the petitioner does not have any knowledge that his vehicle was used for commission of the offence alleged in the case. He further submits that even the apprehended accused Driver has not named the owner of the vehicle and there is no complicity of the present petitioner in the alleged offence in any manner. He further submits that despite the same, his vehicle due to the aforesaid seizure is lying in the Khatkhati Police Station for last 9 months.

7. Per contra, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. submits that on the earlier occasion this Court upon directing the prosecution side to obtain report concerning the zimma of the seized vehicle from the investigating officer, the Page No.# 4/8

Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station by letter dated 19.11.2025 has instructed the office of the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam that the petitioner is not being charge-sheeted in the present case.

8. A copy of the said instructions dated 19.11.2025 submitted by Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P is made a part of the record and marked as 'X'.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

10. A perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that the owner of the seized vehicle, i.e., the petitioner is not being charge-sheeted in the case in question. It further appears that investigation has been completed and upon completion of investigation, the case is charge-sheeted vide Khatkhati P.S. C.S. No. 86/2025 dated 25.08.2025 under Sections 17(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused persons namely, (1) Sri Bijay Brahma (Driver), (2) Sri Purna Baishya and (3) Sri Badal Das and the seized truck is kept at the police station campus. However, the petitioner is not charge-sheeted.

11. It appears that despite the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the petitioner not being involved in the criminal case, his vehicle has long been in custody of the police in the jurisdictional police station since almost 9 months.

12. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

Page No.# 5/8

"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

13. Reference is also made to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241. Paragraph Nos.33 and 34 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the Page No.# 6/8

vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated."

14. A reading of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is apparent that the object of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is not to retain seized articles for longer time than what is absolutely necessary. It further appears that in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra), the Apex Court while noting the four scenarios broadly for exercising the powers to release the seized vehicles in the situation, inter alia, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third party occupant (with or without consideration of the vehicle) without any allegation by the Page No.# 7/8

police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owners knowledge and conveyance, such vehicle should normally be released to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the same as and when directed by the Court and/or would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.

15. In the instant case, as stated above, neither the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR nor has he been charge-sheeted by the police upon completion of investigation. In fact, it is clear from reading of the instructions placed before this Court that the contraband has been seized from the possession of the Driver, who was driving the vehicle of the petitioner. That being so, the impugned order dated 08.04.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong in Zimma Petition No.26/2025, rejecting the prayer for giving zimma of the seized vehicle to the petitioner is not justified. Hence, the same is set aside and quashed.

16. Accordingly, the prayer for zimma of the seized vehicle bearing registration No.AS 01 NC 4927, which was seized in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No.18/2025 under Section 17(c) of the NDPS Act is allowed. The Investigating Officer is directed to release the seized vehicle bearing registration No.AS 01 NC 4927 to the petitioner on his proper identification and on verification of all the relevant documents relating to the said vehicle, in original, and after taking photographs of the said vehicle, and on furnishing a zimma- bond equivalent to the market value of the seized vehicle, with further condition that the petitioner shall not alienate the said vehicle and shall produce it before the Court whenever it is required in the case, during the course of trial.

Page No.# 8/8

17. The criminal petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant