Allowed

Munchul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC5 Aug 2025Crl.Rev.P./225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's prayer for interim custody of a seized motorcycle. The Court held that since the petitioner was the owner, not an accused, and no contraband was recovered from his possession, interim custody should be granted upon furnishing a bond and subject to conditions restricting illegal use or sale.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of two-wheeler motorcycle granted upon furnishing a bond of Rs.75,000/- and usual verifications, subject to conditions restricting illegal use or sale.

Munchul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010124952025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./225/2025

¶6

MUNCHUL HOQUE SON OF CHAHER UDDIN R/O VILL- TENGABASTI P.O. PANCHMILE DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM PIN CODE- 784025

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:KHANIRDUA NATH SI BEHALI POLICE STATION DIST. BISWANATH ASSA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶14

ORDER

¶15

06.08.2025

¶16

1. Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. He also represents respondent no.2, who is a police official.

¶17

2. The revision petitioner, namely, 1. Munchul Hoque has invoked the provisions of 528 of BNSS, 2023, R/W Section 438/442 seeking zimma/interim custody of the two-wheeler motorcycle bearing registration no. AS-12-AE-8301 (Pulsar 125 DTSi) and assails the order dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali in Special NDPS Case No.03/2025 , whereby the prayer for interim custody of the said two-wheeler motorcycle was rejected.

¶18

3. The rejection was primarily, on a police report dated 30.04.2025, which contended that though Munchul Hoque is the owner of the vehicle, but the vehicle is required for the purpose of the investigation, which was not complete at that stage.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the FIR in which the named accused persons are one Harjul Islam and Muksidul Hoque and that they were also subsequently charge-sheeted under Sections 21(b)/25 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

5. A copy of the license of the petitioner has been annexed as

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

Annexure-3 and a copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle has been annexed as Annexure-6 mentioning the vehicle no. as AS12-AE-8301 and in the name of Munchul Hoque. Thus, there are sufficient materials prima facie to indicate the petitioner is the owner of the said two-wheeler motorcycle.

¶23

6. It is submitted and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is also not a named accused in the FIR, therefore, the learned Special Judge was perhaps not justified in rejecting his bonafide prayer for the interim custody of the vehicle.

¶24

7. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, fairly submits that in the meantime charge-sheet has been submitted vide Charge-Sheet No.57/2025 dated 28.07.2025 against the two FIR named persons only.

¶25

8. Undoubtedly, the learned Special Judge was seized of the matter at a time where investigation was not yet completed and therefore, it was natural on his part to give sufficient importance to police report and the contentions of the I.O, who happens to be a master of the situation as far as investigation is concerned.

¶26

9. Nonetheless, it cannot be lost sight of that even at that stage, it was perhaps clear that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle and was neither a FIR named accused nor any allegations were there about any recovery of contraband from his possession. Therefore, perhaps the learned Special Judge ought to have allowed the prayer for interim custody to the petitioner.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

10. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice to interfere with the said impugned order dated 06.05.2025 and allow the prayer of the petitioner.

¶29

11. Accordingly, the said impugned order dated 06.05.2025, passed in Special NDPS Case No.03/2025 is hereby set aside and the Court of learned Special Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali is hereby directed to grant interim custody of the said two-wheeler motorcycle bearing registration no. AS-12-AE8301 (Pulsar 125 DTSi) upon a bond of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) and usual verifications . However, the following conditions are imposed :

¶30

i) That the petitioner shall not allow the said twowheeler motorcycle to be used in any illegal activities ;

¶31

ii) That the petitioner shall not sell the said two-wheeler motorcycle without the permission of the learned trial court.

¶32

12. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Munchul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munchul Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Jeherul Haque Alias Jakir Vs the State of Assam

Ishwar Prasad Jalan Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Anamul Haque Vs Nilufa Sultana Barbhuiya

Neina Das Vs the State of Assam

Abu Mohammed Tanjir Vs the State of Assam

Najmul Hussain Mazumder @ Nazmul Husain Mazumder and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.