Allahabad High Court
Shaney Alam vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 April, 2026
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:86343-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8321 of 2026
Shaney Alam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2. Perused the record.
3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that due to inadvertence, an inadvertent error has crept in 'Prayer-A' of prayer clause of the present writ petition. He, therefore, seeks permission of Court to correct the same.
4. Prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner is bona fide.
5. Same is not opposed by the learned AGA.
6. Accordingly, it is allowed.
7. Let necessary amendment in Prayer-A of the prayer clause of the writ petition be carried out by the learned counsel for petitioner, during course of the day.
8. Petitioner- Shaney Alam has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition with the following prayer :-
"A- Issue an order or nature of direction in the certiorari to modify the impugned order dated 16.3.2026 passed by District Magistrate, Kaushambi in Case No. 1380 of 2025, Computerized Case No. D202502420001380 (State Vs. Shaney Alam) under section 5 (A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, arising out of Case Crime No. 219 of 2024, under section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Saini, District Kaushambi, whereby imposed the amount upon the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- in State Treasury.
B- Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the concerned respondent no.2 i.e. District Magistrate, District- Kaushambi to exempt the imposed amount the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- and consider the bond as surety as fixed by this Hon'ble Court and release the vehicle Container No. UP-21-CN-5247 in favour of petitioner (vehicle owner)."
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 20.06.2024, a prompt FIR dated 20.06.2024 was lodged by the first informant- Sub-Inspector Rajesh Rai and was registered as Case Crime No. 0219 of 2024, under Sections 3, 5-A, 5-B & 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. UP-21-CN-5247 which is a container of Tata Motors Ltd. make was seized by the police.
10. Petitioner who is the registered owner of aforesaid vehicle, filed a release application before the District Magistrate, Kaushambi seeking release of his aforesaid vehicle. The said application came to be dismissed by the District Magistrate vide order dated 25.04.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner in terms of Section 5-A(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The aforesaid appeal came to be registered as Appeal No. 1123 of 2025 (Shaney Alam v. State). The Divisional Commissioner in view of the submissions made on behalf of the present petitioner before him, allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate- Kaushambi and remanded the matter to District Magistrate, Kaushambi for decision afresh. The penultimate part of the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner is relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein below :-
"???????????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ???????-7 ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??, ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ????"
11. Upon remand, the District Magistrate Kaushambi allowed the release application filed by the petitioner but with a condition that petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- which is the value of the seized (vehicle).
12. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the District Magistrate- Kaushambi regarding the release of the vehicle of the petitioner in the impugned order is manifestly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
13. Elaborating his aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and on basis thereof, he contents that the petitioner had agreed to submit a surety as well as an undertaking. Since the petitioner himself had not given an undertaking before the Divisional Commissioner that he shall deposit the value of the vehicle, therefore, the direction so issued by the District Magistrate- Kaushambi is liable to be modified by this Court. Even otherwise, once the petitioner furnishes the surety regarding the value of the truck and also a personal bond as well as a surety in respect of the same then interest of the State shall stand safely protected/guarded. He, therefore, contents that in view of above, the impugned order is liable to be modified by this Court to that extent.
14. Learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 has opposed the present writ petition. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of the present writ petition as noted hereinabove.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 and upon perusal of the record, we find that the petitioner has readily agreed to furnish surety as well as an undertaking regarding the release of his disputed vehicle. However, ignoring the above, the District Magistrate, Kaushambi (respondent-2) had erroneously directed that petitioner should deposit the value of the truck. In our opinion, interest of the State shall stand adequately protected, in case, the District Magistrate Kaushambi had passed an order directing the petitioner to furnish a personal surety as well as another surety regarding the value of the truck itself.
16. In view of the above, we are inclined to modify the order impugned in the present writ petition. As a result, the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by respondent- 2, District Magistrate Kaushambi shall stand modified to the extent that petitioner petitioner shall submit a personal surety as well as another surety to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- each. Upon furnishing such sureties, the disputed vehicle shall be released in favour of petitioner.
17. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) April 17, 2026 Rama Kant