Disposed¶25

Shirajul Khan v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2026Crl.Pet./325/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim custody of seized vehicle; release of truck on bond; illegal Burmese areca nuts smuggling; secret compartments; truck Regn. No. AS-01-NC-2736; ZIMA petition; verification of ownership by Investigating Officer; bond Rs. 50,000/-; Trial Court order dated 18.02.2026; police report dated 16.03.2026 marked 'X'; Sarthebari PS, Barpeta, Assam; Crl.Pet./325/2026; Rajesh Mazumdar, J.; Gauhati High Court; order dated 17.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Conditional release of the seized truck (AS-01-NC-2736): petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 06.04.2026 with documents establishing ownership; upon verification and satisfaction, the vehicle is to be released to his custody on a bond of Rs. 50,000/- for production as and when required during investigation or trial. ¶25

Shirajul Khan Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to custody/release of the seized truck (Regn. No. AS-01-NC-2736), the Trial Court having declined interim custody solely because the ownership of the truck had not been ascertained.

¶21

Court's answer

Ownership being the only factor on which the Trial Court declined custody, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 06.04.2026 along with all relevant documents to establish ownership of the vehicle.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Upon proper verification of the petitioner's credentials and satisfaction that he is the owner of the vehicle, the Investigating Officer shall release the seized vehicle to the petitioner on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- for production of the vehicle as and when required during investigation or trial.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Rajesh Mazumdar, J.), order dated 17.03.2026 in Crl.Pet./325/2026: A criminal petition seeking custody of a seized truck (Regn. No. AS-01-NC-2736), allegedly used for clandestine transport of illegal Burmese areca nuts concealed in secret compartments without Transport Department permission, was disposed of. The Trial Court had refused interim custody on 18.02.2026 solely because the truck's ownership was unverified. Directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 06.04.2026 with all relevant documents to establish ownership, the Court ordered that, upon verification and satisfaction that the petitioner owns the vehicle, the Investigating Officer shall release it to him on a bond of Rs. 50,000/- for production as and when required during investigation or trial.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010045372026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./325/2026

¶6

SHIRAJUL KHAN S/O- RUMEZ KHAN. R/O- VILL.- UTTAR BHURIKHAMAR, P.S.- SARTHEBARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR. M M ZAMAN,N J DUTTA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

17.03.2026

¶14

Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned APP for the State.

¶15

The police report called for from the Investigating Officer regarding the vehicle has been received. As per the report, the truck bearing registration

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

number AS-01-NC-2736 was clandestinely transporting illegal Burmese areca nuts by constructing secret compartments and without any valid permission from the Transport Department.

¶18

The grounds for objection to the ZIMA petition have been enumerated, from which it appears that suspected illegally smuggled areca nuts were recovered and that the ownership of the truck has not yet been verified.

¶19

This Court has also referred to the order dated 18.02.2026, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for custody of the seized truck solely on the ground that the ownership of the truck had not been ascertained till then. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that given an opportunity, he would be able to establish the ownership of the truck and, thereafter, if the seized vehicle is released to him in custody, he would ensure that appropriate care is taken for the production of the vehicle during the course of investigation as well as during the trial, if any. It has also been submitted that the vehicle would be made readily available for confiscation, if so required, in compliance with any order that may be passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned APP has submitted that since the ownership of the truck is in doubt and the vehicle was allegedly used for transporting illegal Burmese areca nuts, the prayer for custody ought to be rejected.

¶21

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Since the ownership of the truck is the only factor on which the learned Trial Court declined to grant custody of the vehicle, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 06.04.2026 along with all relevant documents to establish the ownership of the

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

vehicle. In the event the petitioner is found to be the owner of the vehicle upon verification of the documents, the seized vehicle shall be released to his custody.

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer, who, upon proper verification of the credentials and upon being satisfied that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, shall release the vehicle to the petitioner on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- for production of the vehicle as and when required during the course of investigation or trial, if any.

¶25

This Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶26

The case diary called, which has been received, may be returned. The report dated 16.03.2026 is kept on record marked as ‘X’.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Shirajul Khan v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shirajul Khan v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Jahed Ikbal Vs the State of Assam

Kamrul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Saidul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Anjuman Ara Begum Vs the Assam Royal Global University

Saidul Islam Vs the State of Assam