Saddam Ansari v. State of U.P.) as well as order dated

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred for challenging the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2024 (Saddam Ansari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 19.09.2024 passed District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 388 of 2024 (State Vs. Saddam Ansari) U/s 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, both arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Sections 3/5(A)/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Section 429 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Arms Act, P.S. Balua, District Chandauli. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction in favour of concerned authority to release the vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 within stipulated time.

3. It is the case of the applicant that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Sections 3/5(A)/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Section 429 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Arms Act with the allegation that vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 has been misused in crime and was seized. Applicant is sole owner of the said vehicle. Thereafter applicant preferred bail application before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2024. Thereafter applicant preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 19.09.2024. Being aggrieved with the same, applicant preferred revision before learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2024, both the orders have been challenged through instant petition.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to malice intention. Learned counsel for further submitted that there was no independent witness of the alleged incident and the vehicle in question is matter of natural decay and if the vehicle is not maintained regularly, it shall be valueless. It is next submitted that while passing the orders impugned, all the facts have been discussed but at the same time, it is undisputed that the owner of the vehicle involved in the alleged crime, is the applicant who has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. Referring to aforesaid facts as well as contents of F.I.R. as also the impugned orders passed on the release application moved by applicant, it is submitted that detention of the vehicle for a long time at the police station is likely to diminish its value and ultimately the vehicle may become junk. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC), it is submitted that the Apex Court has held that "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." It is lastly submitted that applicant is willing to fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release of the vehicle in question.

6. On the other hand, leaned AGA submitted that since vehicle in question was involved in illegal transportation of animal, the competent authorities while rejecting the release application have not committed any illegality. Impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

7. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

8. The applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question. Competent authorities were not justified in rejecting the application for release of the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner. By passage of time, the vehicle is likely to become junk and its purpose would frustrate. In these circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.

9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2024 (Saddam Ansari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 19.09.2024 passed District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 388 of 2024 (State Vs. Saddam Ansari) U/s 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, both arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Sections 3/5(A)/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Section 429 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Arms Act, P.S. Balua, District Chandauli, are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e applicant on furnishing adequate security in respect of present valuation of the vehicle in question, subject to the following conditions:-. (i) The applicant shall produce the vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime No. 12 of 2024. (ii) The aforesaid vehicle will not be put for sale by transferring the same to any third party. (iii) The applicant shall also not change the nature and colour of the vehicle in any manner during pendency of said case crime number. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 #Vik/- VIKRAM GUPTA VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred for challenging the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2024 (Saddam Ansari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 19.09.2024 passed District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 388 of 2024 (State Vs. Saddam Ansari) U/s 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, both arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Sections 3/5(A)/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Section 429 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Arms Act, P.S. Balua, District Chandauli. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction in favour of concerned authority to release the vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 within stipulated time.

3. It is the case of the applicant that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Sections 3/5(A)/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Section 429 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Arms Act with the allegation that vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 has been misused in crime and was seized. Applicant is sole owner of the said vehicle. Thereafter applicant preferred bail application before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2024. Thereafter applicant preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 19.09.2024. Being aggrieved with the same, applicant preferred revision before learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2024, both the orders have been challenged through instant petition.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to malice intention. Learned counsel for further submitted that there was no independent witness of the alleged incident and the vehicle in question is matter of natural decay and if the vehicle is not maintained regularly, it shall be valueless. It is next submitted that while passing the orders impugned, all the facts have been discussed but at the same time, it is undisputed that the owner of the vehicle involved in the alleged crime, is the applicant who has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. Referring to aforesaid facts as well as contents of F.I.R. as also the impugned orders passed on the release application moved by applicant, it is submitted that detention of the vehicle for a long time at the police station is likely to diminish its value and ultimately the vehicle may become junk. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC), it is submitted that the Apex Court has held that "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." It is lastly submitted that applicant is willing to fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release of the vehicle in question.

6. On the other hand, leaned AGA submitted that since vehicle in question was involved in illegal transportation of animal, the competent authorities while rejecting the release application have not committed any illegality. Impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

7. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

8. The applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question. Competent authorities were not justified in rejecting the application for release of the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner. By passage of time, the vehicle is likely to become junk and its purpose would frustrate. In these circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.

9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2024 (Saddam Ansari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 19.09.2024 passed District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 388 of 2024 (State Vs. Saddam Ansari) U/s 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, both arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Sections 3/5(A)/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Section 429 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Arms Act, P.S. Balua, District Chandauli, are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e applicant on furnishing adequate security in respect of present valuation of the vehicle in question, subject to the following conditions:-. (i) The applicant shall produce the vehicle i.e. Truck having Registration No. UP 65 LT 7243 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime No. 12 of 2024. (ii) The aforesaid vehicle will not be put for sale by transferring the same to any third party. (iii) The applicant shall also not change the nature and colour of the vehicle in any manner during pendency of said case crime number. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 #Vik/- VIKRAM GUPTA VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad