Samsuddin Ansari vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33767

Court No. - 79

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 180 of 2025

Petitioner :- Samsuddin Ansari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar,Chandrabhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the impugned judgement and orders dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 352 of 2024 (State vs. Samsuddin Ansari) under Section 16(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case No. 297 of 2024 under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the concerned authority to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP 64 BT 1489 in favour of the petitioner, within stipulated time.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail and by way of cooperating with learned trial court facing trial, there is no fresh case against the petitioner in respect of breach of any condition extended at the time of extension of bail in favour of the petitioner. The vehicle which is confiscated is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and as per the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no other source in shape of movable or immovable assets available to the petitioner.

¶9

Referring to aforesaid facts as well as contents of F.I.R. as also the impugned orders passed on the release application moved by petitioner, it is submitted that detention of the vehicle for a long

¶10

time at the police station is likely to diminish its value and ultimately the vehicle may become junk. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC) , it is submitted that the Apex Court has held that "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." It is lastly submitted that petitioner is willing to fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release of the vehicle in question.

¶11

On the other hand, leaned A.G.A. submitted that since vehicle in question was related to the petitioner, who has been implicated in pursuance to sections of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the competent authorities while rejecting the release application have not committed any illegality. Impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶12

I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully, wherein it is crystal clear the petitioner has already been granted bail in the instant matter and the vehicle in question is still kept at police station concerned.

¶13

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed . Impugned orders dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 352 of 2024 (State vs. Samsuddin Ansari) under Section 16(1) of U.P. Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned District Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case No. 297 of 2024 under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, are hereby set-aside . The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the aforesaid vehicle forthwith in favour of its registered owner i.e. petitioner on furnishing adequate security to its satisfaction.

¶14

However, it is made clear that petitioner shall produce the Bolero Pickup vehicle having Registration No. UP 64 BT 1489 as

¶15

and when the learned concerned court will require during trial of Case No. 297 of 2024 and the said vehicle will not be put for sale by transferring the same to any third party. He shall also not change the nature and color of the vehicle in question in any manner during pendency of said case crime number.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Samsuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Pooja and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ruchi Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pawan Raidas Alias Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Pandey vs Jitendra Kumar Verma

Sakshi Bhardwaj vs State of U.P. and Another