Nersing Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

[1] Heard Mr. S.A. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶18

[2] This revision petition under Sections

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

438/442 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nersing Basumatary, impugning the order dated 11.09.2025, passed in NDPS Case No. 379/2024, by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions, Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M), Assam, whereby the prayer for grant of Zimma of one POCO smart mobile phone, along with two SIM card and also one brown colour leather money purse containing petitioner's PAN Card and cash amount of Rs. 540/- were seized in connection with this case was rejected.

¶21

[3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mobile phone of the petitioner, along with his leather money purse and one PAN Card and his PAN Card was seized on 09.04.2024, when he was arrested in connection with STFPS Case No. 06/2024, under Sections 22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶22

[4] He submits that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case of 10.07.2025 and, thereafter, charge sheet was laid against him in the said case.

¶23

[5] He submits that the trial is pending at this stage of prosecution evidence since long and he submits that the seized mobile phone, purse, SIM card and PAN Card, along with cash amount of Rs. 550/- does not have any link with the seized contraband in this case and, as such, he submits that the SIM need not to be retained in

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

the prosecution side.

¶26

[6] He submits that the CDR analysis has already been done by the prosecution side and, therefore, the requirement of mobile phone may not be necessary.

¶27

[7] He submits that the trial court erred in rejecting the prayer for a grant of Zimma mainly on the ground that the articles were recovered contemporaneously, along with the contraband and form part of the same seizure list. Hence, he submits that the aforesaid articles may be given in Zimma to the present petitioner.

¶28

[8] On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no error in the impugning judgment and as the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for grant of Zimma as the articles of which Zimma has been sought for by the petitioner were seized contemporaneously along with the contraband.

¶29

[9] He further submits that the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence has been established by CDR analysis of the mobile phone of the petitioner. He submits that mobile phone is one of the vital evidence of the prosecution side and same may be required for the prosecution case. Hence, he prays not to grant Zimma of mobile phone.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

[10] I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on records. It appears from record that implication of the present petitioner in the alleged offence is also on the basis of CDR analysis of his mobile phone done by the prosecution side. Hence the retention of mobile phone till the trial is concluded by the prosecution side does have a basis and, accordingly, this court does not find any error in the trial court's order in rejecting the grant of Zimma of the mobile phone to the petitioner.

¶32

[11] However, as regards the seized money of Rs. 540/- and seized leather purse as well as PAN card, same may be handed over to the petitioner after preparation of an inventory of the said articles and after taking photographs of the said articles by taking photographs before releasing the same to the petitioner on furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000/- with an undertaking to produce the aforesaid materials before the trial court as and when so required. At the time of granting Zimma, a Zimmanama shall also be prepared and the Zimmanama, inventory and photographs shall be part of the trial court records and the same may be used in lieu of evidence if it is so required by the prosecution side.

¶33

[12] With the above observation, this criminal revision petition is disposed of.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Nersing Basumatary v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nersing Basumatary 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Rafikul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Nazir Kazi Alias Boga Alias Syed Nazir Kazi Vs the State of Assam

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kritanjali Dutta and 6 Ors.

Sri Anil Pegu and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Niva Banikya and 2 Ors. Vs Rumi Banik and Anr.

Kamakhya Nath and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.