[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shahid vs The State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:49255
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7370 of 2023
Mohd. Shahid
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Amarjeet Yadav, Ankit Mishra, Shri Ram Pandey, Vikas Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2022 (Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.0069 of 2021, under Sections 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Deogaon, District Azamgarh. By the said revisional order, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh in Criminal Case No. 1967 of 2021 (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Shahid), whereby the the vehicle was confiscated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of Vehicle No. UP-65-HT-4530, which was allegedly involved in the commission of the aforesaid offences. The vehicle was confiscated by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh on 17.05.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, seeking release of the said vehicle, which was dismissed, and the order of the District Magistrate was affirmed vide order dated 09.05.2023. Hence, the present petition has been filed challenging the revisional order dated 09.05.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the vehicle has been lying in police custody since 17.04.2021, causing grave hardship to the petitioner, who relies on the said vehicle for his livelihood. It is submitted that the continued seizure of the vehicle has severely affected the petitioner's business and is wholly unwarranted.
5. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the vehicle has remained in police custody since 17.04.2021, and it may reasonably be presumed that the investigation must have concluded by now. Accordingly, there appears to be no justification for the Investigating Officer to continue retaining the vehicle.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 SCC OnLine SC 934, the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner, provided that no auction proceedings have been initiated by the concerned S.D.M. The release shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the trial court; (b) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise alienate the vehicle during the pendency of the trial; and (c) The trial court shall be at liberty to impose such further terms and conditions, including requiring security or surety bonds, as it may deem fit and proper.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
March 10, 2026
Anil K. Sharma
