Crl.Pet./1395/2025 of LATIF EARSHAD ALIAS LATIF IRSHAD AND 2 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 7 September 2026

ORDER

08.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. The present petition relates to the refusal of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, to give custody of the articles named in the order dated 08.07.2025, i.e., [i] Vivo Y19 bearing IMEI Nos. 964706042938651 and 864706042938644, [ii] Samsung M51 bearing IMEI Nos. 356164659262707 and 357563179262700, [iii] OnePlus 11R bearing IMEI No. 865780066349714 and Sl. No. 99FCD967 and [iv] Green Colour Ford Figo car bearing regn. AS-01AZ-5388, and by the order dated 10.07.2025; and [i] Apple MacBook Air laptop and a grey locker bearing no. colour Digital SAV2003220104635, [ii] One Bajaj Pulsar bearing regn. no. AS-04R-2888 [iii] One Honda Activa Scooty bearing regn. no. AS-04Y-2012, [iii] One Tata Tiago bearing regn. no. AS-01BZ-9641 and [iv] One Tata Tigor XZ(O) bearing regn. AS-06U-3474.

3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the above articles were shown to have been seized based on an FIR lodged on 02.10.2024. The FIR was registered as Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024, and the charge-sheet has not been submitted.

4. Another FIR had been lodged on 16.10.2024 before the Bokata Nemeguri Police Station, which was registered as Nemeguri P.S Case No. 11/2024. The same has culminated in a Charge-sheet No. 1/2025 and later has been recorded as Sessions Case No. 4(S-S)/2025 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar; the trial is proceeding in the aforesaid Sessions Case.

5. The I.O in connection with Sessions Case No. 4(S-S)/2025 had moved an application on 27.05.2025, seeking the liberty to withdraw the Charge-sheet No. 1/2025 submitted in Bokata Nemuguri P.S Case No. 11/2024, and for being allowed to effect modification on seizure list with reference from Simaluguri P.S and re-submission of modified Charge-sheet in connection with Charge-sheet No. 1/2025.

6. The prayers made by the I.O had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 27.05.2025. On the same day, a report was called for from the I.O by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, regarding the prayer for release of the mobile phones which were seized in connection with Bokata Nemeguri P.S Case No. 11/2024.

7. On receipt of reports, vide order dated 10.06.2025, it was recorded that the I.O had reported that the articles were seized in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024 and the Session Case related to Bokata Nemeguri P.S Case No. 11/2024. The custody petitions were deemed to have become redundant and were disposed of accordingly without granting custody of the mobile phones. Although not specifically averred in the order, the learned Senior Counsel submits that, by the same order, where several custody petitions had been declared to have become redundant, the custody of the Apple MacBook, Bajaj Pulsar, Honda Activa Scooty and Tata Tiago had also been rejected by the order dated 10.06.2025. The learned Sessions Judge had noticed that as per the report given by the I.O, the articles were seized in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024 and not in connection with Bokata Nemeguri P.S Case No. 11/2024.

8. Situated thus, the petitioners thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge in Sivasagar in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024 seeking custody of Apple MacBook, Bajaj Pulsar, Honda Activa Scooty and Tata Tiago and Tata Tigor Vehicles. Applications were also moved claiming custody of the mobile phones and green color Ford Figo Car in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024.

9. The records placed before this Court reveal that by the order dated 08.07.2025, the petition for custody of the Vivo Mobile Phone, Samsung Mobile Phone and OnePlus Mobile Phone and the green color Ford Figo Car had been rejected since the report of the I.O disclosed that the articles were not seized in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024. By the order dated 10.07.2025, the custody of the Apple MacBook, Digital Locker, Bajaj Pulsar,

Honda Activa Scooty and Tata Tiago and Tata Tigor Car were also rejected, since the I.O had reported that they were not seized in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024.

10. Situated thus, the petitioners are now before this Court since, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, a catch-22 situation has come up when the vehicles are shown to be not seized in either of the two cases and yet the custody has been retained by the Investigating Officers and the vehicles are lying in the Police Station concerned.

11. It would not be feasible in the facts and circumstances of the present case to call for reports from the Investigating Officers of either of the two cases to decide whether the custody of the articles referred to in this order be given to the petitioner.

12. Keeping all the aspects of the present petition in view, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, to have an appropriate decision regarding the actual seizure of the articles and vehicles mentioned hereinabove.

13. The petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, within a period of 15 days from today, bringing out the entire conspectus of the case including the certified copies of the two reports submitted by the different Investigating Officers in connection with Simaluguri P.S Case No. 24/2024 and Bokata Nemeguri P.S Case No.

11/2024.

14. The learned Sessions Judge shall cause an inquiry and have specific comments of the Investigating Officers as to in which the vehicles are required to be shown as seized and whether their further custody is required in any of the two cases. The learned Sessions Judge shall thereafter pass an order either allowing or denying the custody of the vehicles; however, only after determining the correct police case under which the vehicles have been shown to be seized.

15. Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant