Faisal vs State of U.P. and Another

The instant application has been preferred for quashing order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.12(13) of 2025 (Faisal Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 01.10.2024 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Bareilly in Case No.1182 of 2024, Computer Case No.D-202412130001182 (Faisal Vs. State of U.P.) by which application preferred at the behest of applicant seeking release of his vehicle, has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has never been made accused in the present case whereas the vehicle in question was driven by his driver who has already been granted bail. Relevant documents have been brought on record, which shows that the applicant is owner of vehicle in question, bearing registration No. U.P. 81 ET 4220 and no useful purpose shall be served by way of keeping the vehicle in question at police station concerned.

¶12

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

¶13

NA528 No. 15993 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

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 applicant is willing to fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release of the vehicles in question.

¶16

On the other hand, leaned A.G.A. submitted that since vehicle in question is related to the applicant, the competent authorities while rejecting the release application, have not committed any illegality and as such, impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully through which it is crystal clear the applicant has never been made accused in the present case and the vehicle in question is still kept at police station concerned.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application is allowed . Impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.12(13) of 2025 (Faisal Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 01.10.2024 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Bareilly in Case No.1182 of 2024, Computer Case No.D-202412130001182 (Faisal Vs. State of U.P.), are hereby set-aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No. UP 81 ET 4220 in favour of its registered owner, i.e., applicant upon furnishing surety upto the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following terms and conditions as mentioned below :-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall produce the vehicle in question as and when the learned concerned court will require during trial of aforementioned case.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not put for sale the vehicle in question by transferring the same to any third party.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall also not change the nature and color of the vehicle in question in any manner during pendency of said case.

¶22

November 19, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶23

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faisal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal 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

Anita and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Anjali Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radhika and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Manish Dubey and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raju Alias Rajendra Alias Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others