Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Chaudhari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187279 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4944 of 2020 Yogesh Chaudhari .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amarnath Tripathi, Indra Kumar Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.), Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents, and perused the material available on record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 29.09.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the appellate court upheld the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, confiscating the vehicle, in Case No. 02728 of 2018 titled State v. Yogesh Chaudhary, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. UP-15-BY-7700, which was allegedly involved in the commission of the offence in the aforementioned case. The District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, passed an order on 31.10.2019 confiscating the said vehicle. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar which came to be dismissed by order dated 29.09.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
4. It is further submitted that the vehicle has remained in police custody since 31.10.2019, which has caused grave hardship to the petitioner. It is next contended that the said vehicle is his sole means of livelihood, and its continued detention has severely affected his ability to earn a living and support his family.
5. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the vehicle was seized on 31.10.2019, and it can safely be presumed that the police investigation has been completed in the aforesaid case crime. Therefore, there appears to be no justification for continued retention of the vehicle in police custody at this stage.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002 SCC OnLine SC 934), the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner, provided that no auction proceedings have been initiated by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The release shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer or the trial court as and when required; (ii) during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the vehicle; and (iii) the trial Court may impose such further conditions, including furnishing of a security bond, as it deems fit and proper.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Vinod Diwakar,J.) October 17, 2025 Anil K. Sharma