HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29806 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.9, Agra in Criminal Misc. Application No.683 of 2025 (State vs. Narendra and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.691 of 2024, under sections 8, 21, 22, 25, 27(a), 29, 60 of N.D.P.S. Act and sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 276, 277 BNS, P.S. Sikandra, District- Agra as well as to direct the opposite party no.2 to remove the seizure placed on the property of applicant. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant failed to apprise the Court that any specific order or proceeding has ever been initiated in respect of attachment of the property pertains to applicant. However, on specific instructions so received by learned A.G.A., although it is crystal clear that neither the applicant has been implicated at the time of lodging the F.I.R., nor implicated at the time of preferring charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C., but at the same time, there is no specific incident available in the proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.691 of 2024, which shows that the property of applicant has ever been attached/sealed in respect of allegation whatsoever has been made against the persons, who were submitted by learned counsel for applicant that rent deed has already been executed between the applicant and them. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that release application preferred Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Son Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) at the behest of applicant before learned court concerned has already been rejected, which arises cause of action for filing the instant application before this Court. 5. On precise query made before learned counsel for applicant that under which proceeding the property which was alleged to be released in favour of applicant has ever been seized/attached; the same was unanswered and as such no cause of action arises in favour of applicant for filing application before this Court at least without apprising before learned court below in respect of attachment/seizure of the property pertains to applicant. 6. In view of above, the instant application stands dismissed at this stage. 7. However, applicant will be at liberty to prefer the same application for same cause of action, if the issue decided by learned court concerned wherein the fresh application has to be preferred by the applicant for seeking release of his property only when the same has been released in respect of Case Crime No. 691 of 2024. September 8, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 29806 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad