HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37025 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 30.7.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia in Criminal Case No.565 of 2025 (State Vs. Anil Sahani) (Computer Case No.D202515090000565) under section 5 (A) of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2025, under sections 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Narahi, District Ballia and to release the TATA Magic Vehicle No.UP-54BT-2976 in favour of the applicant which is the case property of aforesaid case crime number. 3. Applicant has been challaned in this case for transportation of cow progenies in his Pick-up Vehicle No.UP-54BT-2976. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is the owner of the TATA Magic Vehicle No.UP-54BT-2976 and when the police raided upon the said vehicle, two alive cow progenies were found loaded in the said vehicle. It is further submitted that by keeping the cows with him the present applicant was transporting the cows. No cow progenies were killed and no beef has also been recovered from the said vehicle by the police. It is also submitted that due to seizure of the said vehicle, the applicant is unable to earn his livelihood. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history to his credit. The registration certificate of the vehicle has also been filed by the applicant which is the part of the record which shows that the applicant is the registered owner of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Sahani .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) said vehicle. The applicant has been bailed out in the present matter. It is also submitted that by keeping the vehicle at the police station for a long time, it may diminish its value and ultimately become junk. 5. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC) wherein it was 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." 6. Keeping the vehicle at the police station for a considerable time is not going to serve any purpose. A registered owner of the vehicle is entitled to keep its custody and possession. Since the aforesaid vehicle is also the case property, the applicant can be directed to produce the said vehicle as and when directed by the Court or the District Magistrate. 7. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed. The impugned order 30.7.2025 is set aside. The vehicle in question shall be released in favour its registered owner on his furnishing adequate security subject to the following conditions : (i) that the registered owner shall produce the aforesaid vehicle as and when directed by the Court or the District Magistrate at his own expenses. (ii) The registered owner shall not transfer or sale the vehicle in question to any person without permission of the Court. October 14, 2025 ss NA528 No. 37025 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad