Serial No. 03 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Rev.P. No.9 of 2025 Date of Order: 15.12.2025 Shri. Ratan Debbarma Son of Shri Purna Debbarma R/o Sardar Para, Kathiram, P.S.: Mandai, District: West Tripura, Tripura-799045.

…..Petitioner -VERSUS-

State of Meghalaya through Public Prosecutor.

…..Respondent Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.A. Sheikh, GA (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned GA appearing for the State-

respondent.

The petitioner has approached this Court on being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Zimma Application No.7 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, arising out of Crl.(NDPS) Case No.1 of 2025 u/s 8(c) 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act rejecting the prayer of zimma of Maruti Suzuki Supper Carry Pick-up bearing Registration No.TR05/F-1909.

A brief fact of the case is that on 24.07.2024, the petitioner’s vehicle along with another vehicle bearing Registration No.TR04/D-1920 were intercepted by the police and on search, 266.89 kgs of marijuana was recovered. Consequently, Umiam P.S. Case No.64 of 2024 u/s 8(C) 20(B)(ii),(c)25/29 of NDPS Act, was registered and the vehicle of the petitioner was seized along with the other vehicle. The petitioner thereafter filed Zimma Application No.7 of 2025 before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, for release of his vehicle bearing Registration No.TR05/F-1909. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties rejected the prayer of the petitioner by order dated 22.07.2025. The petitioner being aggrieved has now approached this Court.

Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the Maruti Suzuki Supper Carry Pick-up bearing Registration No.TR05/F-1909 which was seized in connection with the Umiam P.S. Case No.64 of 2024. He submits that the petitioner has no involvement in the said case as the vehicle in question had been handed over to a driver on a contract basis for using the vehicle to transport goods for valuable consideration and also for retaining custody of the same subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) weekly to the petitioner. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the acts and omissions of the driver. He further submits that the vehicle was procured by the petitioner by availing financial assistance and the seizure and retention of the vehicle by police is causing great hardship to the petitioner. He contends that there is no specific bar/restriction under the NDPS Act for conditional release of seized vehicle. He further contends that there is no definite timeline as to when the trial of the case would conclude and hence, interim zimma of the vehicle may be granted to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in SLP (Crl) No.17081 of 2024, Tarun Kumar Majhi v. The State of West Bengal and Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 1258.

Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned GA appearing for the State-respondent, on the other hand, strongly objects to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the driver of the vehicle bearing No. TR05/F- 1909 is absconding and that the details of the identity of the driver have not been disclosed to the police by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner and the driver are evading arrest and that the petitioner has not appeared before the police despite several notices were sent to him. He submits that if the petitioner has no involvement in the alleged offence, he should have come forward to disclose the identity of the driver of the seized vehicle. The investigation of the case reveals that the petitioner is strongly s