HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8283 of 2025 Court No. - 77 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 01.03.2024 passed by the court of Additional District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev), District Bulandshahar under Section 6A of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 in Case No.823/2023 (State vs. Neetoo Solanki & Kaushalendra & ors) arising out of Case Crime No.0048/2023, under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 and 379, 420 IPC, P.S. Kakod, District Bulandshahar as well as the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Special Judge (Essential Commodity Act) Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Bulandshahar under Section 6C of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 in Criminal Appeal No.43/2024 (Sanjai Singh vs. State of U.P. ) with its all consequential effects whatsoever throughout and direct the concerned officials to release vehicle No. UP-13-AT-6618 in favour of applicant. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime no. 0048 of 2023, under Section 3/7 of Essential Comodity Act, 1955 and 379, 420 IPC against four persons on the allegation that vehicle having Registration No. UP-13-AT-6618 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 01.03.2024 which has been challenged through instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Chaurasiya, Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sanjay Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 Additional District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev), District Bulandshahar, computerized case no. D202311170000823 (State vs. Neetoo Solanki & Kaushalendra & ors) is hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP-13-AT-6618 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. UP-13-AT-6618 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime no. 0048/2023 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. October 6, 2025 Rakesh NA528 No. 8283 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad