Sunder Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court 30 May 1991 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7017 of 1991 (1991) 05 AHC CK 0087
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7017 of 1991

Hon'ble Bench

G. Malaviya, J

Advocates

S.P. Sharma, for the Appellant;

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred
  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 11
  • Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - Section 5A, 8

Judgement Text

Translate:

G. Malaviya, J.@mdashHeard the learned Counsel for the applicant. A perusal of the order dated 16-5-1991 passed by the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kasia, district Deoria in Crime Number 112 of 1991, u/s 5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act read with Section 11 of the U.P. Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, police station Hata, district Deoria reveals that the Driver of Truck number U.R.M. 8116 had made an application for release of the said Truck. The application was, however, dismissed on the ground that the Truck was a case property.

2. The application even otherwise could not have been allowed as no vehicle can be released in favour of its Driver, Only when the owner of the vehicle makes an application for its release, the question of release of the Truck could be considered. However, it may be observed that in these type of cases it is always desirable that the court dealing with the matter should direct release of the case property, provided it is not involved in a very serious type of offence if the person makes an application to the court with an undertaking to produce the vehicle before the court again in the same condition in which it was at the time of the commission of the crime. To ensure this condition, the court may direct the applicant to get the coloured photographs of the vehicle taken from different angles. However, release should always be subject to the person furnishing adequate security for the full value of the vehicle sought to be released.

3. With the observations made above, this application is dismissed.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Read More