Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109189 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21683 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav 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 18.11.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No. 5405 of 2023, (Computerized Case No. D202314360005405) (State vs. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari) under Section 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as order dated 15.02.2025 passed by Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi in Revision/Case No. 3869 of 2024 (Compurerized Case No. C202414000003869) (Jitendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P.) under Section 5A(8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. 3. It is the case of the applicant that an FIR has been registered as Case Crime no. 0203 of 2023, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention to Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 against two persons including the applicant on the allegation that Pickup having Registration No. UP62 BT 7438 has been misused in crime and was seized. Applicant is sole owner of the said vehicle. Thereafter applicant preferred anticipatory bail application before the coordinate Bench of this Court which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 13860 of 2023. Thereafter applicant preferred an application before the District Magistrate for seeking release of his said vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 18.11.2023. Being aggrieved with the same, applicant preferred revision before the Court of Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2025, both the orders have been challenged through instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to malice intention. 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 applicant who has been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. 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 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. 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 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 18.11.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No. 5405 of 2023, (Computerized Case No. D202314360005405) (State vs. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari @ Rajendra Tiwari) under Section 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as order dated 15.02.2025 passed by Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi in Revision/Case No. 3869 of 2024 (Compurerized Case No. C202414000003869) (Jitendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P.) under Section 5A(8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the Pickup having Registration No. UP62 BT 7438 forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e applicant on furnishing adequate security in respect of present valuation of the vehicle in question subject to the following conditions:-. (i) The applicant shall produce the vehicle i.e. Pickup having Registration No. UP62 BT 7438 as and when the concerned trial court will require during trial of aforesaid case. (ii) The said vehicle will not be put for sale by transferring the same to any third party. (iii) The applicant shall also not change the nature and colour of the vehicle in any manner during pendency of aforesaid case. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad