Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58417 Court No. - 76 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14862 of 2024 Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of Up And 2others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nimesh Kumar Shukla,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been preferred to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in criminal revision no. 216 of 2024 (Krishna Kumar Yadav vs. State) arising out of case crime no. 204 of 2021 under Section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is owner of the vehicle bearing No. UP-44 T-5789, which was found to be involved in commission of offence registered by the Police in the aforesaid case. The said vehicle was seized by the police with the allegation of transportation of the cows. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application before the Magistrate for release of the vehicle, but vide order dated 24.05.2023, the Magistrate has rejected the application of the applicant. Thereafter he filed revision petition challenging aforesaid order, passed by the District Magistrate, the same was also dismissed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur vide order dated 28.08.2024 and the order dated 24.05.2023, passed by the Magistrate, was upheld. The vehicle is lying in the police custody which is causing inconvenience to the business of the applicant. He further contends that the vehicle was the only source of income of his family because of seizure of the said vehicle, entire family is facing hardship. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2024, the applicant has preferred the instant application before this Court for release of the vehicle in his favour. 5. On perusal of the report, it transpires that the vehicle was seized. It can safely be presumed that the investigation by the police must have been completed by now, and therefore, there is no reason for the investigating officer to the keep the vehicle in Police Station. 6. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 SCC Online SC 934, let the vehicle be released in favour of the applicant subject to the conditions that applicant shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Police or the Court where the trial is pending; during the pendency of the trial, applicant shall not sell or dispose of the vehicle; the vehicle shall be used only for the purpose for which it has been purchased and not for any illegal purpose. If the vehicle is found to be involved in any of the offence, the same shall be intimated to the Court where the case is pending, the other conditions viz. security bond etc., shall be decided by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, as he may deem fit and proper. 7. The instant revision stands allowed. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 /C. MANI (Justice Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad