Allowed

Nava Mahanta v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2026Crl.Pet./236/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of zimma of seized vehicles and mobile phones and sought defreezing of their bank accounts in a cheating/theft FIR. Holding the accounts were frozen without reporting to the Magistrate as required by Section 106(3) BNSS, the court ordered defreezing and release of seized properties on bonds with inventory safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Seized vehicles and mobiles ordered released on bonds; bank accounts directed to be defrozen; impugned orders interfered with.

Nava Mahanta Vs the State of Assam — Quashing and FIR | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010033922026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./237/2026

¶5

PARASH MANI DAS S/O RAMCHARAN DAS R/O VILL- BHURKIBARI,P.O. BAMUNIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, TRI GOSWAMI

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶10

Linked Case : Crl.Pet./236/2026

¶11

NAVA MAHANTA S/O LATE ARUN CHANDRA MAHANTA R/O VILL AND P.O. NAHIRA P.S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM

¶12

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP

¶13

Page No.# 2/7

¶14

ASSAM

¶15

-----------Advocate for : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP

¶16

ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date - 02.06.2026

¶20

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶21

2. By this common judgment, this Court intends to dispose of two criminal petitions, namely, Criminal Petition No. 237/2026 and Criminal Petition No. 236/2026, wherein two separate orders passed in Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2025 on 12.01.2026 have been impugned. In the Criminal Petition No. 236/2026 by the impugned order dated 12.01.2026, the prayer for grant of zimma of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-04-BC9602 (one Innova Crysta Vehicle), one Google Pixel 10 Pro XL Mobile and defreezing of bank account of petitioner Parash Mani Das was rejected has been impugned.

¶22

3. Whereas, in the Criminal Petition No. 237/2026 the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2026 whereby the prayer for grant of zimma of vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01FV-4308 (one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle) one iPhone 15 Mobile and defreezing of bank account of the petitioner Parash Mani Das was rejected has been impugned.

¶23

Page No.# 3/7 4. As both the impugned orders were passed in connection with Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2026, hence, these criminal petitions are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶24

5. The facts relevant for consideration of the above-mentioned criminal petitions are, in brief, that on 28.11.2025, one FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Boko Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the said FIR have indulged in theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy, causing wrongful financial loss to the Brahmaputra Biochemical Pvt. Ltd.

¶25

6. On receipt of the said FIR, Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2025 was registered under Sections 318 (4)/316(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and investigation was initiated.

¶26

7. During the course of investigation, one i-phone and one Galaxy Ultra Mobile of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 237/2026, namely, Parash Mani Das, was seized on 28.11.2025, at 9.00 p.m., and thereafter, one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01-FV-4308 was seized on 30.11.2025.

¶27

8. Similarly, the bank account of the petitioner, Parash Mani Das, was also freezed, in connection with the aforementioned case.

¶28

9. In a similar manner, the Innova Crysta Vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS-04-BC9602, belonging to the petitioner of Criminal Petition No.236/2026, namely, Nava Mahanta was seized on 30.11.2025. One Google Pixel mobile handset was seized from him on 28.11.2025, his bank account bearing account No. 50100216632551 of HDFC Bank, Vijayanagar, and another bank account bearing account No. 3957701202 of CBI Bank, Boko Branch were also seized in connection with the aforementioned case.

¶29

Page No.# 4/7

¶30

10. Both the petitioners approached the trial court seeking zimma of the seized articles as well as de-freezing of their respective bank accounts. However, by impugned orders dated 12.01.2026, the prayer for grant of zimma was rejected by the Trial Court, considering the stage of investigation, at which the investigation was pending at that point of time.

¶31

11. Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in both the criminal petition, has submitted that under Section 106 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 in event of seizing of any property in connection with the case, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to forthwith report such a seizure to Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶32

12. He submits that in the instant case, the freezing of bank account, which also amounts to seizure of a property under Section 106 of BNSS, 2023 was not even reported to the jurisdictional Court. He also submits that the vehicles seized in connection with the aforementioned case is lying in the police station campus for the last about six months. He submits that as per the guideline of the Apex court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in AIR (2003) SC 638 , wherein the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of retaining the vehicle in the police station campus for a long period. He submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation and also ready to produce the seized vehicle as well as mobile as and when required for the purpose of investigation or trial. He also submits that since the freezing of the bank account is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 106 (3) of BNSS, 2023, the same is liable to revoked.

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

13. He also submits that the Apex Court has held that the bank accounts may be regarded as property of persons against whose name the accounts are held and hence, it is mandatory to inform the jurisdictional Magistrate once such bank accounts are freezed and any violation thereof would make such a freezing illegal and hence, he prays for defreezing the bank account immediately. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has cited following rulings.

¶35

a. Shento Varghese Vs. Julfikar Husen and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 23

¶36

b. Irina Konwar Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2022) 6 GLR 772

¶37

c. The State of West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar De (Criminal Appeal No. 5373/2025, Judgment dated 10.12.2025 of the Supreme Court of India)

¶38

14. On the other hand, Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has produced the case diary of Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2025 and has fairly submitted that as regards the freezing of the bank account of both the petitioners are concerned, no intimation to that effect was given to the jurisdictional Magistrate by the Investigating Officers. However, as regards other seizures, the same was done by the Investigating Officer. He submits that he has procured a report from the Investigating Officer of the case as was directed by this Court and the same is placed with the case record. He also submits that as regards the grant of zimma of the other seizures with materials are concerned like vehicle and mobile phones, the same

¶39

Page No.# 6/7

¶40

is objected to mainly on the ground that those vehicles and mobile phones are suspected to have been procured from the proceeds of crime. He also submits that the investigation of the case is still going on, therefore, he opposes the prayer for grant of zimma of seized materials at this stage.

¶41

15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the case diary of Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2025.

¶42

16. As regards the impugned orders dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Boko are concerned, it appears that the prayer for grant of the seized properties made by the present petitioners were rejected considering the stage of investigation and no further reasoning has been given in the impugned orders. Now, it appears that more than 5 months have elapsed since the date of passing of the impugned orders and it also appears that the vehicles in question, which are seized in this case, are lying under open sky in the police station campus.

¶43

17. The Apex Court has observed in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat” (Supra) that it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at police station for long periods and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the seized vehicles, if required at any point of time.

¶44

18. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court as well as in view of the fact that the vehicles are lying under open sky for about last more than 5 months and that the petitioners are ready to cooperate

¶45

Page No.# 7/7

¶46

in the investigation and produce the seized vehicles as and when required, the impugned orders are interfered with and the Investigating Officer of Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2025 is hereby directed to give the seized vehicles/mobile phones of the petitioner seized in the above noted case on their furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,00,000/- against each of the seized vehicles and bond of Rs. 50,000/- each for production of the seized mobile phones as and when required.

¶47

19. At the time of giving the zimma, the photographs of the vehicles and mobile phones shall be taken by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall also prepare one inventory and tag the same with the zimmanama to be kept along with the case record of Boko P. S. Case No. 368/2025.

¶48

20. As regards the freezing of the bank accounts of the present petitioners are concerned, since no intimation of the same was given to the jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of the provision contained under Section 106 (3) of BNSS, 2023 such freezing of bank accounts is bad in law and as such, the same cannot continue. The concerned bank managers are directed to defreeze the said bank accounts and allow account holders of the said accounts to operate the same.

¶49

21. With the above observations, these criminal petitions are disposed of. 22. Send back the case diary along with a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Nava Mahanta v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nava Mahanta v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ator Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Hamedur Islam Alias Hamidur Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Alfaz Uddin @ Mijarul Rahman Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Sanat Kr. Pal and 3 Ors.

Parash Mani Das Vs the State of Assam

MD Rafikul Islam Vs the State of Assam