Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125995 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38043 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Ojha,Rabindra Nath Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. In compliance with earlier order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, compliance affidavit has already preferred by District Magistrate, Ballia through learned AGA which is available on record. 3. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Ballia in Case No. 1215 of 2023 (State vs. Ram Bahadur), under Section 3/5(A)/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and further direct the opposite parties to release the vehicle Bolero Maxitruck Plus Pick Up No. UP60 T- 6053 in favour of applicant no. 2 which is case property of Case Crime No. 172 of 2023, Police Station Maniyar, District Ballia. 4. It is the case of the applicants that initially an FIR was registered as Case Crime no. 172 of 2024, under Section 3/5(A)/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, against the applicants on the allegation that vehicle Bolero Maxitruck Plus Pick Up having Registration No. UP60 T-6053 has been used in crime and was seized. Applicant no. 2 is owner of the said vehicle which was purchased from applicant no.1. Thereafter applicant no. 2 preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2024 which impugned the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants have 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 order 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 no.2 who has been granted bail. 6. Referring to aforesaid facts as well as contents of F.I.R. as also the impugned order passed on the release application moved by applicant no. 2, 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 guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and 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. 7. 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. 8. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 9. The applicant no. 2 is the owner of the vehicle in question. Competent authority was 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. 10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Ballia in Case No. 1215 of 2023 (State vs. Ram Bahadur) under Section 3/5(A)/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 is hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle Bolero Maxitruck Plus Pick Up having Registration No. UP60 T-6053 forthwith in favour of its registered owner on furnishing adequate security in respect of present valuation of the vehicle in question, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall produce the vehicle Bolero Maxitruck Plus Pick Up having Registration No. UP60 T-6053 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime No. 172 of 2024. (ii) The said 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 :- 29.7.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad