HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7686 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred to set aside the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 597 of 2025 (State vs. Udit Rod and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 131, 117(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nagar, District Saharanpur, whereby the appellant’s application for release of vehicle Brezza bearing Registration No. UP-11-CF-4334 was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, that no case has been registered against him personally, and that the continued detention of the vehicle in police custody would lead to its deterioration. He undertakes to produce the vehicle before the trial court whenever required and is willing to furnish adequate security. Reliance has been placed upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943. 4. Per contra, the trial court had declined release of the vehicle on the ground that the same was allegedly used in the commission of a grave offence involving murder and police encounter, and hence its release could prejudice Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Kumar, Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sanju Lata Sachin Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the investigation or the trial. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the appellant’s ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute. The vehicle is lying in custody since its seizure, and prolonged detention of a motor vehicle, even when seized in connection with a criminal case, serves no useful purpose, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). Its condition deteriorates over time, ultimately resulting in loss to the rightful owner as well as to the State. 6. At the same time, the release of the vehicle at this stage will not, by itself, affect the ongoing investigation or trial, particularly when the appellant undertakes to produce the same whenever required. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The vehicle Brezza bearing Registration No. UP-11-CF-4334 shall be released in favour of the appellant subject to the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties, each in the sum of ₹6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only), to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with, dispose of, or transfer the vehicle without prior permission of the court. (iii) The appellant shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court during the pendency of the case. October 9, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 7686 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad