Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93979 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8150 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for challenging the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Mirzapur in Suit No. 405/2024, Computerized Case No. D202416530000405 (State of U.P. vs. Vishal Vishwakarma and others) under Section 5(Ka) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the concerned authority/opposite party no.2 to release the vehicle (Pickup) having Registration No.UP-66-AT-2924 in favour of the applicant. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime no. 0005 of 2024, under Section 3/5A/8 and 11 of Cow Slaughter Act against two persons on the allegation that vehicle having Registration No. UP-66-AT-2924 has been misused in crime and was seized. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Thereafter petitioner preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2024 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. 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 not named in the F.I.R. 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 13.12.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Mirzapur in Suit No. 405/2024, Computerized Case No. D202416530000405 (State of U.P. vs. Vishal Vishwakarma and others) under Section 5(Ka) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 is hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP-66-AT- 2924 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-66-AT-2924 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime no. 0005 of 2024 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 :- 30.5.2025 Rakesh Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad