Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11575 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15127 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shaif Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar,Chandrabhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No.348 of 2024 (State Vs. Shaif Khan), under Section 16(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and orders dated 27.09.2023 as well as 21.08.2024 passed District Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case No.1598 of 2023 under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction in favour of concerned authority to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP 64 Z 8009 (TVS Apache RTR 160) in favour of petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of criminal history of one case bearing Case Crime No.78 of 2023, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act registered against petitioner, provision of Gangster Act has been invoked against petitioner and he was made accused in Case Crime No.95 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Thereafter District Magistrate vide impugned order 27.09.2023 in Case No.1598 of 2023 under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 through which vehicle of petitioner having Registration No. UP 64 Z 8009 (TVS Apache RTR 160), has been attached wherein petitioner filed his objection dated 04.01.2024 stating therein that he has purchased the said vehicle from his own money. The said objection preferred at the behest of petitioner, dismissed by the District Magistrate vide impugned order dated 21.08.2024. Being aggrieved with the said order, petitioner preferred application before learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Sonbhadra for release of his vehicle in question which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2024 which impugned the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to malice intention and more so, the vehicle in question was purchased by petitioner in the year 2016 on his own money. It is next submitted that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in the cases in which he was made accused. 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 contraband ganja, 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. 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 petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No.348 of 2024 (State Vs. Shaif Khan), under Section 16(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and orders dated 27.09.2023 as well as 21.08.2024 passed District Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case No.1598 of 2023 under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the aforesaid vehicle forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e petitioner on furnishing adequate security to its satisfaction. 10. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall produce the vehicle Registration No. UP 64 Z 8009 (TVS Apache RTR 160) as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of said case and the said vehicle will not be put for sale by transferring the same to any third party. He shall also not change the nature and colour of the vehicle in any manner during pendency of said case crime number. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad