Allahabad High Court
DHARAMENDRA KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the lower courts' finding that the petitioner did not establish ownership of the seized engines.
Summary
The petitioner, owner of a scrap vehicle business, challenged the seizure of eight engines by police under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, claiming the allegations were false and that he had produced ownership documents. The release application filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed on the ground that the documents did not match the engine numbers seized. The petitioner appealed the dismissal through a criminal revision, which was also rejected without further consideration of his ownership evidence. The High Court examined the trial court’s finding and held that the petitioner failed to establish ownership, and therefore upheld the lower courts’ orders. Consequently, the writ petition seeking release of the engines was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner proved ownership of the seized engines sufficient to warrant their release.
- Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the release application without applying the Supreme Court precedent in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.
- Whether the High Court should set aside the orders of the Additional Session Judge and the Judicial Magistrate under Article 227.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 317(2), 317(4), 317(5)
Subjects
- seizure
- release application
- ownership proof
- scrap business
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Article 227
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14595 of 2025
Dharamendra Kumar Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Bikram Suryabansh, Vinay
Kumar Singh Chandel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Kumar Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri
R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order
dated 07.11.2025 of Additional Session Judge (FTC), Court No. 2, Varanasi
passed in Crl. Revision No. 389 of 2025, Dharamendra Kumar Gupta Vs.
State of UP and others, (Annexure- 1) & order dated 25.07.2025 of Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi passed in Release Application, arising out
of Case Crime No. 102/2025 Police Station Raja Talab, District Varanasi,
u/s 317 (2), 317(4), 317 (5) BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS)
(Annexure- 2). He further prayd to direct the concerned court/police
authority to release the eight engines seized in Case Crime No 102/2025 in
favour of the petitioner forthwith.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the
owner of Ananya Traders, engaged in the scrap business of old vehicles. His
business is registered under GST, and all legal documents pertaining thereto
are valid and in order. He further submitted that the vehicle engines were
seized by the police authorities from his shop pursuant to the registration of
an FIR in Case Crime No. 102 of 2025, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), and
317(5) of the BNS, Police Station Rajatalab, District Varanasi, on the basis
of false and fabricated allegations. He submitted that the petitioner filed a
release application for the seized engines before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate; however, the same was dismissed on 25.7.2025. Aggrieved by
the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.389 of 2025
A227 No. 14595 of 2025
2
(Dharmendra Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was also
dismissed without considering the fact that documents relating to the
ownership of the seized engines had been produced before the concerned
Magistrate. He further submitted that both the courts below have committed
illegality in dismissing the release application without following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.
State of Gujarat, (2002) LawSuit (SC) 1346.
4. Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent, submitted that the
engines seized from the petitioner's shop were stolen and that the petitioner
failed to establish his ownership over the said engines.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated
25.7.2025.
6. The concerned Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the
documents produced by the petitioner in respect of the engines do not match
the engine numbers of the engines seized by the police authorities. On the
basis of the aforesaid finding, the release application of the petitioner was
dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
May 6, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…