Ravi Kumar Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3554 of 2026

¶3

Ravi Kumar Kushwaha

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Kumar Yadav, Raj Nath Bhakta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 81

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present Application U/S 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as "B.N.S.S.") has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, in Case No. 1595 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. D202505200001595) (State vs. Ravi Kushwaha), under Section 5(A) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby applicant has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,71,250/- in the Government Treasury for releasing his vehicle.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was named in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the Police of Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria, as Case Crime No. 330 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

¶11

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant obtained bail in the aforesaid matter and thereafter he filed a release application of his vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 52 AT 3758, which was rejected by the District Magistrate, Deoria, on 09.09.2024. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2025.

¶12

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that being

¶13

NA528 No. 3554 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

aggrieved vide the aforesaid orders, the applicant filed an Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. 24963 of 2025, which was allowed on 17.07.2025, subject to the terms & conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 9. The paragraph no. 9 of the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2025, passed in Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. 24963 of 2025, is reproduced as under:-

¶16

"9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Deoria in Case No.1875 of 2023 (State vs. Ravi Kumar Kushwaha) under section 5A of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2024 (Ravi Kumar Kushwaha vs. State of U.P.), under section 5A(8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, is hereby set-aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to release the vehicle in shape of Mahindra Pickup car bearing registration No. UP 52 AT 3758 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 :-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that when the order dated 17.07.2025 of this Court, was placed before the District Magistrate, Deoria, she again imposed a condition that the applicant will deposit Rs. 3,71,250/- as penalty in the government treasury and only after production of receipt of deposit of aforesaid amount, the vehicle in question would be released by her in favour of the applicant.

¶21

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the

¶22

NA528 No. 3554 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

applicant is a very poor person and he has no source of income for his livelihood. The aforesaid vehicle was taken on loan and he is not able to deposit the aforesaid amount. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, was passed in order to nullify the order, passed by this Court on 17.07.2025, and it goes to show that she does not want to obey the order passed by this Court. She has knowingly and willingly, flouted the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2025, passed by this Court and contempt proceedings should be initiated against the District Magistrate, Deoria. The conduct of Ms. Divya Mittal, prima facie, goes to show that she is trying to sit over the order of this Court. She will also explain as to how and under what authority she tried to modify order of this Court, passed on 17.07.2025. She will also explain as to why her conduct should not be reported before the Principal Secretary (Home), Lucknow, for taking necessary disciplinary action.

¶25

Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, Ms. Divya Mittal, the District Magistrate, Deoria, will file her personal affidavit before this Court, within a week from today, and she will explain her conduct as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, should not be initiated against her and as to why she did not obey the order passed by this Court on 17.07.2025.

¶26

Put up this case on 13.02.2026, as fresh.

¶27

It is expected that Ms. Divya Mittal, the District Magistrate, Deoria, before filing her personal affidavit, shall release the vehicle of the applicant in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 17.07.2025. In case, no personal affidavit is filed within the aforesaid period, the District Magistrate, Deoria, shall appear in person before this Court, on the next date of hearing positively.

¶28

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Ms. Divya Mittal, the District Magistrate, Deoria, for compliance. In case, she has been transferred to some other District, she would be informed accordingly.

¶29

February 5, 2026

¶30

A.P. Pandey

¶31

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Kushwaha 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaya Kunwar Devda and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maya and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Pinki and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shahrukh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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