Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45734 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6983 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Irfan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Raziullah,Gayasuddeen,Zartab Qamar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Raziullah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mayank Sinha, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned A.G.A., who has stated that he will advance his submission on the basis of material available on record and he does not propose to file a counter affidavit. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed validity of judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 632 of 2025 under Sections 5A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby the District Magistrate has ordered release of the applicant's container truck subject to deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs, which is the assessed value of the container truck. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant being owner of the vehicle, was not aware about the usage to which the vehicle had been put by the driver thereof and he is not in any manner involved in commission of the alleged offence. 5. The learned A.G.A has opposed the writ petition and he has submitted that the aforesaid defence was put up by the applicant before the District Magistrate also where the applicant had stated that the truck had been booked for transporting some Ply Patta from Moradabad to Bahraich but no evidence in this regard was produced before the District Magistrate and no evidence has been annexed with the present writ petition filed under Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the defence set up by the petitioner at this stage and this has to be examined by the trial court . 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in requiring submission of security by the petitioner for release of his vehicle. However, the condition of depositing the entire assessed value of the vehicle appears to be harsh and unreasonable. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed by providing that instead of depositing the amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the petitioner may furnish security in lieu thereof in the shape of fixed deposit receipt of a nationalized bank or the bank guaranteed. Upon furnishing of the aforesaid security, the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench