Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94411 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11135 of 2025 Applicant :- Harikesh @ Harikesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajkapoor Upadhyay 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 has been preferred for challenging the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Deoria in Revision No.88 of 2022 (Harikesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 27.01.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Deoria in Case No.1303 of 2021 (State Vs. Harikesh Yadav), under Section 5Ka 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. UP 52 T-8388 in favour of applicant within stipulated time. 3. It is the case of applicant that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime no. 115 of 2021, under Section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Animal from Cruelty Act, 1960 against two persons on the allegations that a vehicle i.e. Pickup having Registration No. UP 52 T-8388 was involved in transportation of animals. Applicant is not an accused in the said case and the said vehicle was given by him on rent. Thereafter applicant preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 27.01.2022. Being aggrieved with the same, applicant preferred criminal revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Deoria but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2023, both the orders have been challenged through instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is not an accused in the said case and the said vehicle was given by him on rent and by seizure of his vehicle, he is unable to maintain livelihood of his family. 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 applicant, 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 applicant 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. Impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 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 accused in the present case and he 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 orders are liable to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Deoria in Revision No.88 of 2022 (Harikesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 27.01.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Deoria in Case No.1303 of 2021 (State Vs. Harikesh Yadav), under Section 5Ka of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the aforesaid vehicle forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e applicant on furnishing adequate security to its satisfaction. 10. However, it is made clear that applicant shall produce the vehicle i.e. Pickup having Registration No. UP 52 T-8388 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of Case Crime no. 115 of 2021 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 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad