ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel MR. S. H. Sikdar for the petitioner Injamul Haque who has filed this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh in connection with Moran P.S. Case No. 03/2026 under Sections 106(1)/125 of the BNS, whereby the zimma petition No. 56/2025 with prayer for zimma of the truck bearing registration No. AS01-DD-7187 was rejected.

2. It is submitted that the vehicle was seized in connection with this case resulting in the death of a young lad aged 22 years. The father of the deceased (late Raju Gogoi), lodged the FIR and during investigation, the truck bearing registration No. AS01-DD-7187 was seized in connection with this case. When at the time of the investigation, the zimma petition was filed, vide Moran P.S. Case No. 03/2026, the prayer for zimma was rejected.

3. On the submission of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner had failed to produce the driver of the vehicle, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, despite being directed on several occasions to produce the driver of the vehicle.

4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. P. Goswami for the respondent State who has submitted a report forwarded by the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection against the petition for quashing the order dated 05.02.2026 in Moran P.S. Case No. 03/2026 as the Investigating Officer through a letter has stated that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation and hence he is not entitled to discretionary relief of the zimma of the vehicle.

6. The petitioner has failed to produce the driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been clearly mentioned in the paragraph-11 of the petition that all the relevant documents have already been submitted before the Investigating Officer of the instant case as the petitioner is unable to produce the driver who is evading arrest.

8. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court in Kachem Ali Vs. The State of Assam in connection with Crl.Pet No. 1027/2025 , wherein vide order dated 18.09.2025, it was held that:-

“9. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 , the Apex Court has observed as follows:-

“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.”

10. In view of the above aforesaid observations, there is no dispute with the legal propositions that it is no used in the police station for a long period and the Magistrate can 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.”

9. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle has been lying in the police station for 5 months.

10. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) and the decision of this Court in Kachem Ali (Supra), the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Investigating Officer of Moran P.S. is directed to give zimma of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS01-DD-7187 to the present petitioner with an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required in connection with this case and on executing a