HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14284 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance Commission),Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 424 of 2024, State v. Shivam Savita, arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of 2021, under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 26 of 2021 under Section 363 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat against an unknown person. During investigation, the role of the applicant with other co-accused persons were found in commission of crime. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 I.P.C. was filed. During investigation, a Swift Desire car bearing No. UP-78-FL-0273 was seized by the police on 28.01.2021 with an allegation that the applicant along with co-accused persons committed murder of the deceased by using a rope and threw the dead-body in a canal. The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle. The applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2022. After his release, he filed an application for releasing of the vehicle but the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by stating that the case is pending for recording the statement of P.W.-1 Dinesh Singh and in case the vehicle is released, the applicant can tamper with the condition of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Singh, Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sumit Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the vehicle, whereas the applicant has undertaken that he will not tamper the vehicle or destroy the evidence. The vehicle is kept in the police station from the long period. Its condition is deteriorating and utility of the vehicle is also affecting, therefore, the order dated 03.10.2025 may be set-aside and the Trial Court may be directed to release the vehicle in favour of the applicant. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the submissions so advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant along with the co-accused person have committed murder of the deceased in the said car by a rope and threw dead-body in the canal. The rope was seized from the said car. The trial is at the state of evidence. In case the vehicle is released, the applicant may tamper its condition. The learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, this application may be rejected. 5. As per the fact of this case, a missing report regarding the deceased Lucky was lodged at the police station concerned on 17.01.2021 that Lucky was missing since 16.01.2021. On 25.01.2021, a dead-body was found near the local river which was identified as the dead body of Lucky on the next day. In the post mortem report 7 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. The name of the present applicant came into light after recovery of the dead body. An application dated 27.01.2021 was given by the father of the deceased at police station concerned that when Lucky was going from his house, he had informed that his brother-in-law (Jija), the present applicant and Shivam were calling him telephonically and after that only the dead body of the deceased was found. Later on in the confession of Shivam, it has come that the present applicant and co accused Ashok Kumar, Sumit and Suraj Kumar committed murder of Lucky. The applicant was driving the car. From the rear seat of the car Ashok Kumar and Sumit tangling the neck of the deceased with a rope put him to death, he could not even raise any alarm. Then they threw his dead body in the canal. At the pointing out of Sumit, Suraj Kumar and Ashok Kumar, the rope used in the murder of the deceased is said to have been recovered. 6. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The applicant filed an application for release of the said vehicle by stating that he is the registered owner of the same. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.10.2025 has dismissed the said application by stating that the case is pending at the stage NA528 No. 14284 of 2026 2 of recording the statement of P.W.-1 Dinesh Singh and also declined the prayer of the applicant by stating that the case is related to a heinous crime and the trial is pending an the applicant may tamper with the evidence. The said vehicle is detained from a long period and its condition may be deteriorate and utility of the vehicle may affected if it is kept for a long period. 7. In the light of the contentions of both the parties, this Court has gone through the facts and circumstances on record. The law is very much clear pertaining to release of the case property as is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desi versus State of Gujrat reported in 2003 (46) ACC 223, in which it is held that the powers under section 457 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judicially, as it would serve various purposes. Seized articles should be handed over to the person to whom the same belong and for this purpose the Court may adopt the procedure of recording evidence required for, bond and security may be taken, photographs of such articles may be taken and the same should be attested and counter signed by the person concerned to whom the property is to be delivered and the accused of the case thereby imposing appropriate conditions because getting stationed the property at Police station for a long period is not useful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down the law that whatever may be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at the Police station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guaranty, as well as security for return of the vehicle if required at any point of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also emphasized that it is expected and trusted for the Magistrates concerned that they would take immediate action using powers provided for release of property in the Cr.P.C. properly and promptly and to ensure that the property shall not be kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than 15 days to one month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clarified that in case where the accused disputes that he is not involved in the alleged incident and no article was found from him, then such endorsement be taken on the photograph with regard to the vehicle and it is made clear that there can not be any necessity of producing the vehicle before the court and the seizure report may be sufficient. 8. In the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in this NA528 No. 14284 of 2026 3 regard, this Court is of the view that whatever may be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period. Certainly, the trial of this case will take a long process and apprehending the vehicle to be kept unattended at the police station may make the same junked and also may deteriorate the value of the vehicle and depriving the owner of the vehicle of its use. Since the proper Panchanama before handing over the vehicle to its registered owner, can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial, there is no use to refuse the release of the vehicle in favour of applicant. Hence, this Court comes to this conclusion that the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 is liable to be set aside and the learned Trial Court is liable to be directed to act upon for releasing of the vehicle in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Amba Lal Desai (supra). 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.10.2025, passed by the learned passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance Commission), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 424 of 2024, State v. Shivam Savita, arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of 2021, under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat, is set-aside. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance Commission), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) is directed to pass a fresh order within one month of receiving a certified copy of this order as per provisions of law. 10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of. 11. Let this order be communicated to the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance Commission), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) by the Registrar (Compliance). April 8, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 14284 of 2026 4 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad