Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73006 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6326 of 2025 Applicant :- Yashwant Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandrakala Kumari,Gyanendra Srivastava,Raj Kumar Gupta,Satish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred for challenging the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2/District Magistrate, Ghazipur, Commissionary, Varanasi in Case no. 1690 of 2023, computerized case no. D202314290001690 (Yashwant Singh vs. State) under Section 5A of U.P.Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction in favour of concerned authority to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP54 AT5616 within stipulated time. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime no. 0052 of 2023, under Section 3/5A/8 and 5 of Cow Slaughter Act and 3/25 Arms Act against three persons on the allegation that vehicle having Registration No. UP54 AT5616 has been misused in crime and was seized. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and is sole owner of the said vehicle. Thereafter petitioner preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2024 which has been challenged through instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for further submitted that there was no independent witness of the alleged incident and the vehicle in question is matter of natural decay and if the vehicle is not maintained regularly, it shall be valueless. It is next submitted that while passing the orders impugned, all the facts have been discussed but at the same time, it is undisputed that the owner of the vehicle involved in the alleged crime, is the petitioner who is not named in the FIR. 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 animal, the competent authorities while rejecting the release application have not committed any illegality. It is also submitted through the instructions that vehicle in question is available at concerned Police Station. 7. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 8. The applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question. 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 order is liable to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Ghazipur, in Case no. 1690 of 2023, computerized case no. D202314290001690 (Yashwant Singh vs. State) is hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP54 AT5616 forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e applicant on furnishing adequate security in respect of present valuation of the vehicle in question. 10. However, it is made clear that applicant shall produce the vehicle having Registration No. UP54 AT5616 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime no. 0052 of 2023 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 :- 6.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad