GAHC010189892025 2025:GAU-AS:14628

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./357/2025

MD DOULAT KHAN S/O JAILAT UDDIN

R/O KWAKTA WARD NO. 2, KUWAKTA,

BISHNUPUR, P.S. MOIRANG, MANIPUR-795133

MOBILE NO. 8729862177

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : S KAUR, L BANIK,N NEOG

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

ORDER

30.10.2025

Date :

1. Heard Ms. L Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of

Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 438 R/W Section 442 of the

BNSS, 2023 by which the petitioner has prayed for custody of the Night Super bus bearing registration No. MN-07-H-0011 seized in connection with NDPS Case No. 39/2025 pending in the Court of Sessions (Spl) Judge, Diphu, Assam arising out of Dillai P.S Case No.

2/2025 under Section 21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Ms. L Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed order dated 10.07.2025 by which the custody application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Sessions (Spl) Judge, Diphu, Assam. The Court observed in the said order that there was a secret chamber in the bus and the presence of such a chamber indicates that the driver and the persons engaged with the vehicle are using it for transportation of contrabands on a regular basis and that heroin was seized valued to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and on the basis of the same, the custody was not allowed to the petitioner. Ms. L Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits further that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he was no way involved in the offence in question. She submits that the secret chamber built in the bus was for other purposes and not for keeping any contraband in the same. She submits that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that articles seized in connection with any criminal offence may not be kept in Police Station for long, she prays that custody of the same during the trial of the alleged offence, may be allowed to the petitioner.

4. This Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 had called for a report from the I/O regarding custody of the vehicle and in pursuant to the same, Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the report obtained from the O/C of Dillai P.S where in it was stated that a prayer was made for confiscating the seized vehicle by the Public Prosecutor before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions (Spl) Judge, Diphu, Assam and as such, there is objection in handing over the seized vehicle to the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and have carefully gone through the records. Under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, it is provided that after the trial of offences, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the Court shall decide whether any article including conveyance is liable to confiscation under Section 60/61/62 of the NDPS Act, and if the Court decides that the article is so liable, can order confiscation accordingly. This shows that the confiscation can be done under the said Section only after the trial of the offence is over. Further, under Section 60(3), it is provided that any conveyance used in carrying in narcotic drug or psychotrophic substance or any article liable for confiscation, under sub-section 1 or 2, shall be liable for confiscation unless the owner of the vehicle shows that the same vehicle was used without his knowledge for the said offence. In the instant case, it is seen the owner of the said vehicle has claimed custody over the said vehicle and has also claimed that he has no knowledge that the vehicle had been used in commission of the offence. Further, it is a settled position of law that the articles seized in criminal cases may not be kept in the police station for long as the same would lead to damage. It has been categorically held by the Ho