Mere transportation of cows, its progeny not offence: Allahabad High Court

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order on April 15.

Confiscation of vehicle

An FIR was lodged against the petitioner in March 2024 under provisions of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Indian Penal Code, and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s driver was transporting cows in the truck. The vehicle, registered in the petitioner’s name, was subsequently seized and confiscated.

Feeling aggrieved by the confiscation of his vehicle, he approached the high court.

The petitioner argued that no beef was recovered from the vehicle and there was no allegation of slaughter. He further contended that prolonged seizure of the truck had deprived him of his livelihood. It was also submitted that by keeping the vehicle at the police station for a long time, it could diminish its value and ultimately become junk.

Opposing the plea, the additional government advocate challenged the maintainability of the plea. He further submitted that there was no illegality in the order to confiscate the vehicle under sub-section (7) of Section 5-A of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Section 5 A(7) says- The vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement officers. The concerned district magistrate/commissioner of police will do proceedings of the confiscation and released, as the case may be.

Order of release

At the outset the court noted that the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail by the high court. Relying on a precedent, the court also reiterated that keeping seized vehicles in police custody for long periods serves no purpose and leads to their deterioration.

“It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles,” the court said.

On the issue of maintainability, the court rejected the state’s objection, noting that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the high court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.

“The alternate remedy is no bar to invoke power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution or 482 of CrPC or 528 BNSS, thus, the objection of the learned AGA fails,” the court observed.

It allowed the plea for release of the petitioner’s vehicle relying on another judgment and considering that the vehicle was stationed since the last two years in the open premises of the police station and was becoming junk.

Accordingly, the court directed that the truck be released to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions that it shall not be sold or altered and must be produced before the court as required.