HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1993 of 2021 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 01741 of 2021 bearing Computer Case No. D202114700001741 (State Vs. Majid), arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, under Section 5A of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Varanasi whereby the application dated 21.01.2021 for release of vehicle No. UP65FT 7737 Pickup moved by the revisionist being registered owner, has been rejected on the ground that the said vehicle was used in the commission of crime. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the revisionist is registered owner of vehicle No. UP65FT 7737 Pickup, which is registered in Transport Department, Varanasi. It is further submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted by the police in Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Ram Nagar, District Varanasi and it was alleged that six alive cows were being transported by the said vehicle by the revisionist and they were recovered by the police. It is next submitted that on the date of incident i.e. 10.09.2020, the revisionist was going to unload the vegetable items at Chandauli. The aforesaid vehicle was also taken into custody by the police and F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist and other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the revisionist was granted bail by the court concerned vide Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aftab Ahmad Khan, Anand Kumar Singh, Mohammad Irshad, Shamshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Majid .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P.And Another .....Opposite Party(s) order dated 15.01.2021. It is further submitted that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and all the original papers relating to the said vehicle were already kept in the vehicle itself. His vehicle is detained in police station without any reason and it is being damaged whereas the said vehicle is the only source of livelihood for the revisionist. The vehicle is lying in the police custody since 10.09.2020, which is causing inconvenience to the business of the revisionist. It is further 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. It is also submitted that the vehicle was the only source of income of his family and because of seizure of the said vehicle, his entire family is facing hardship. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate, Varanasi passed an illegal order without following the dictum of law determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court pertaining to the matters involving issues regarding release of a vehicle and totally ignored and discarded the legal norms applicable to the case in hand. 4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC), it is submitted that the Hon'ble 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 revisionist is willing to fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release of the vehicle in question. 5. Per contra, leaned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and he was granted bail by the court concerned. He submitted that the District Magistrate concerned while rejecting the release application has not committed any illegality and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 7. From a perusal of the record it reveals that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The concerned District Magistrate 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 criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. CRLR No. 1993 of 2021 2 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 01741 of 2021 bearing Computer Case No. D202114700001741 (State Vs. Majid), arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, under Section 5A of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Varanasi is set-aside. The concerned Court/District Magistrate is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of its registered owner on furnishing adequate security to his/her satisfaction by imposing conditions upon the revisionist. October 7, 2025 Rmk. CRLR No. 1993 of 2021 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad