Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8562 of 2025

Sarita Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd Ansari,	Muqeem Ansari, Mohd. Fazal Mohd. Mobin Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 89

¶6

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶7

Heard Mohd. Mobin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by District Magistrate Chandauli in Case Crime No. 315 of 2023 State versus Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, Under Sections- 3/5A/5B/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 11 Animal Cruelty Act & 4/25 Arms Act Police Station - Chandauli, District Chandauli and order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Session Judge Chandauli in criminal revision no. 40 of 2025 (Sarita Devi versus State of U.P.). A further prayer has also been made to issue direction to concerned authority to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP 67 BT0258 in favor of the petitioner forthwith.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his vehicle was seized in Case Crime No. 0315 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act at Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his vehicle has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case, whereas it was not involved in the transportation of cows. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, moved an application for release of his vehicle before the Court of the District Magistrate, Chandauli, where confiscation proceedings in Case No. 392 of 2024 (State vs. Vinod Kumar Jaiswal) were pending. He submitted his objection stating that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was duly insured and had a valid permit. Despite this, an order for confiscation of the vehicle, with a direction to the S.H.O. for auctioning the same was passed by the District Magistrate on 19.10.2024.

¶10

A227 No. 8562 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

Aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2024, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2025 (Sarita Devi versus State of U.P.). The said criminal revision was also dismissed on 7.5.2025, upholding the findings recorded by the District Magistrate in the order dated 19.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts have committed gross illegality in denying the release of the petitioner's vehicle in his favour.

¶13

Learned AGA for the State has submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was seized while it was involved in the illegal transportation of govansh in violation of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act, and that the order of confiscation as well as the auction of the vehicle does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

This Court will not enter into the merits of the facts upon which the FIR against the petitioner was registered under the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act as those involve disputed questions of fact. No substantial ground has been shown by the petitioner to establish that his vehicle was falsely implicated by the police authorities. However, this Court is of the view that confiscation of the vehicle should not result in deprivation of the owner's right to receive the said vehicle upon furnishing adequate security.

¶16

This Court further finds that both courts have failed to consider the settled legal position that the owner must be afforded an opportunity to redeem the vehicle on deposit of its value or furnishing of adequate security as may be determined by the competent authority such as the RTO. In the present case, it is evident that no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The impugned order reflects non-application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law.

¶17

However, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned orders at this stage, inasmuch as the ends of justice would be adequately met by permitting the petitioner to approach before District Magistrate, Chandauli by submitting appropriate application seeking release/redemption of the vehicle. Accordingly, without setting aside the impugned orders, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with observations made hereinabove.

¶18

The concerned District Magistrate shall, while deciding such application, specifically consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle on

¶19

A227 No. 8562 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

deposit of its value, as may be determined by the RTO. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of such application. It is further provided that till the aforesaid period, or till the decision of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken in respect of the vehicle in question.

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

¶23

May 5, 2026 Ujjawal

¶24

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asutosh Pachauri vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar @ Pavan Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anuradha and Another Vs Ajay Kumar

Ajay Singh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another