Allowed

Md. Afzal Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023A482/21293/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application to quash orders rejecting the release of a truck confiscated under the Cow Slaughter Act. The court held that despite the serious allegations, the vehicle should be released during trial to prevent rust and destruction, provided the owner furnishes a personal bond and security equivalent to its market value.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; impugned orders of Sessions Judge and District Magistrate quashed; truck released on conditions of providing personal bond and security.

Md. Afzal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171895

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21293 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Md. Afzal Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction to quash the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No.184 of 2022 (Md. Afzal Khan Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 06.12.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.837 of 2022( State Vs. Mohammad Afzal Khan), under Section 5(A ) of the Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, 1955 (in brevity Cow Slaughter Act), arising out of Case Crime No.274 of 2022, under Section 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act and 11 Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Ali Nagar, District Chandauli.

¶8

The FIR, being Case Crime No.0274 of 2022 dated 01.08.2022 has been lodged showing the involvement of vehicle in question i.e. DCM/Truck bearing registration No.UP-44-T-9380 to transport cow progenies (5 cows and 5 bulls) which are allegedly being transported for the purposes of slaughtering to the State of West Bengal. As per FIR version, on the information of the informer police team has stopped the vehicle in question, however, driver and the cleaner were fled away from the spot.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the false recovery has been shown by the police officials from the vehicle in question just to create an evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. DCM/Truck bearing registration No.UP-44-T-9380. It is further submitted that the final decision in the matter in question will take sufficient time, therefore, vehicle in question confiscated in the aforesaid case crime may be released so that same may not be destroyed till the final decision of the case.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the submissions as raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the involvement of the vehicle in question in transporting the cows, prima facie, for the purposes of slaughtering cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that all the cow progenies (5 cows and 5 bulls) recovered from the vehicle in question were found in pathetic condition. Their mouth and legs were tied mercilessly and cruelty with ropes. It is further contended that possibility of involvement of the vehicle in question after release in the same crime cannot be ruled out.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A and perusal of the record, it reveals that the vehicle in question has been confiscated by the authorities concerned under section 5A of the Cow Slaughter Act. The allegation is that the vehicle in question was used for transportation of cow from U.P. to West Bengal, for the purposes of their slaughter.

¶12

At this juncture, the truthfulness of the story as narrated in the FIR with respect to the transportation of cow progenies (5 cows and 5 bulls) and purpose of their transportation cannot be examined. Present applicant has moved an application before authority concerned under Cow Slaughter Act to release his vehicle i.e. DCM/Truck bearing registration No.UP-44-T-9380. On the basis of case as averred in the FIR, learned District Magistrate and the Revisional Court have come to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was in the use of transporting the cow progeny in violation of the provisions as enunciated under sections 5A and 5B of the Cow Slaughter Act, therefore, same has rightly been confiscated and is not liable to be released.

¶13

Learned trial court while rejecting the release application filed on behalf of the applicant has tried to touch the merits of the case relating to the occurrence of offence under different sections of Cow Slaughter Act and Animal Cruelty Act. The scope of section 5A of the Cow Slaughter Act relating to the release of confiscated vehicle is very limited. For the purposes of release of a case property Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded the guidelines in the matter of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai Vs. Gujarat State 2022 (10) SCC page No.383 . Admittedly, vehicle in question is confiscated by the police and parked in the police station in open place which is in vulnerable condition and will be reduced to rust in absence of proper maintenance.

¶14

In this conspectus, as above, without entering into the merits of

¶15

the occurrence of offence as narrated in the FIR, I am of the considered view that the vehicle in question i.e. DCM/Truck bearing registration No.UP-44-T-9380, which has been confiscated in Case Crime No.274 of 2022, under Section 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act and 11 Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Ali Nagar, District Chandauli is liable to be released during pendency of the present trial.

¶16

As such, instant application is allowed . The order impugned dated 24.04.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No.184 of 2022 (Md. Afzal Khan Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 06.12.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli are hereby quashed and the aforesaid vehicle in question, which has been seized in Case Crime No.0274 of 2022, is hereby released, if not required in any other case, on the following conditions:-

¶17

i. present applicant shall furnish personal bond and ensure that whenever the case property is required in the present matter he shall produce the vehicle in question before the court below without changing its shape and colour, and same shall not be used in any other illegal work. In case, any change is required for the purposes of maintenance same shall not be carried out without the prior permission of the court concerned.

¶18

ii. He shall furnish surety equivalent to the current market value of the vehicle in question which shall be ascertained by the authority concerned within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the present applicant, in case, found himself difficult to deposit the cash, he shall be at liberty to furnish the security other then cash or bank guarantee within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Mini

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Md. Afzal Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Afzal Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shriman Shukla @ Saurabh Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Puri Goswami and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another