Crl.Rev.P./353/2026 of TALEB ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 11 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 12.08.2026

Heard Mr. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. In this petition, under Section 438/442/528 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.06.2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Goalpara, in petition No. 558/2026, arising out of Dhupdhara P.S. Case No. 27/2026.

3. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in connection with Dhupdhara P.S. Case No. 27/2026, the I.O. had seized huge quantity of petroleum products, being 25 numbers of plastic drums, containing approximately 40 litres of petroleum products, from the residential premises of the present petitioner, who happens to be the father of accused Monirul Islam, and thereafter, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet had been submitted before the learned trial Court, being charge-sheet No. 40/2026, dated 28.07.2026. Mr. Khan also submits that thereafter, the petitioner had filed one petition, being petition No. 558/2026, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Goalpara (‘trial Court’, for short), seeking custody of the seized petroleum products, but the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 19.06.2026, had dismissed the petition. Mr. Khan further submits that the petitioner had purchased the seized petroleum products from M/s Dighali Service Station, Dighali Pt-2, Dist. Goalpara and the vouchers of such purchase is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-3 series, from page No. 19 to 29, and that the seized petroleum products will be used for farming purposes by the petitioner. Mr. Khan also submits that since investigation has already been completed, the petroleum products may not be required in the interest of investigation, and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition, by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

4. It is to be noted here that a report was called for from the I.O., vide order dated 15.07.2026, and pursuant to the said order, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has produced the report of the I.O. today, and perusal of the said report indicates that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet, bearing No. 40/2026, dated 28.07.2026, has been submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara. The said report also indicates that the seized petroleum products being highly inflammable and hazardous in nature, it is difficult for keeping the same in the premises of the police station, and that the petroleum products are no longer required for the purpose of investigation.

5. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the documents produced before the Court in respect of ownership of the aforementioned seized petroleum products, and also considering the report submitted by the I.O., this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

6. It is provided that on furnishing on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the seized petroleum products shall be released in the custody of the petitioner herein. And to facilitate in carrying out such an exercise, the impugned order dated 19.06.2026, passed by the learned trial Court, stands set aside and quashed.

7. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of.

8. The report of the I.O., produced by Mr. Goswami, shall be marked as ‘X’ and tagged with the record.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant