KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS ADDL. CHIFE SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/7767/2025 · 2025-08-27
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 158962 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 158962 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7767 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Lakhan Vishwakaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenge the validity of an order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 56/2025, under Section 5(A) of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby a condition has been put for depositing Rs.13,00,000/- for release of the applicant's truck in the aforesaid case. The petitioner had filed an Appeal No.1530 of 2025 challenging validity of the aforesaid order, which has been rejected by means of an order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the appellate order also. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not capable of depositing the value of truck amounting of Rs.13,00,000/- and he is ready to furnish security for the aforesaid amount for release of the truck. 4. The truck is lying in custody since 07.12.2024 and inspite of an order having passed on 27.02.2025 for its release subject to deposit of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner could not deposit the amount; obviously due to paucity of funds and inspite of the released order having been passed on 27.02.2025, the vehicle could not be released inspite of expiry of six months since then. 5. In these circumstances, it appears to be in the interest of justice that instead of directly depositing the aforesaid amount, the petitioner is directed to furnish sureties for the aforesaid amount. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Kulwant Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chife Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 56/2025 is modified to the extent that instead of depositing Rs.13,00,000/- in case the petitioner furnishes sureties for the aforesaid amount, his vehicle bearing registration No. PB05 AN 7053 will be released in his favour.
August 27, 2025 S. Shivhare CRLP No. 7767 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench