JITENDRA ALIAS JITENDRA BINDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5163 of 2025

Jitendra Alias Jitendra Bind
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Jaya Agrahari, Priya Dubey, Ravi Jha,
                                Sharadey Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the
impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by District
Magistrate, Ghazipur in Case No. 46/2025, Computerize Case No.
D202514290000046 (State Vs. Jitendra Bind), Under Section 3/5A/5B/8 of
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and 3/25 Arms Act,
Police Station-Khanpur, District-Ghazipur.

3. The genesis of the F.I.R. is as follows: on 23.11.2024 at about 2:40 A.M.,
the Station House Officer, P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur, along with
police personnel, was on night patrol and vehicle checking duty near
Singarpur Market. Acting on information from a reliable informer that a
pickup vehicle through Vilaage Tetarpur carrying cows for slaughter was
proceeding towards (Bihar) via Chandauli, the police party intercepted a
pickup vehicle bearing No. UP61BT8940 coming from the said direction.

4. On being signaled to stop, two persons attempted to flee; there were three
persons sitting in the Pickup one person was apprehended at the spot, the
driver was identified as Jitendra Bind S/o Makhancho Bind. From his
personal search, one country-made pistol (.315 bore) and one live cartridge
were recovered. Upon inspection of the vehicle,six bulls and one cow were
found alive. The animals were in distressed condition.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order
dated 30.07.2025 was passed without the application of judicial mind and
without considering the specific facts of the case. The learned District
Magistrate did not assign any cogent reason for declining to release the
vehicle pickup vehicle No. UP61BT8940 in favour of the revisionist on a
personal bond; instead, the court directed to deposit the present cost of
money of the said vehicle and confiscation of the vehicle in favor of the
State Government.
                                                           CRLR No. 5163 of 2025
                                 2



6. It is further submitted that revisionist would suffer great loss and financial
injury if the vehicle is confiscated. The confiscation order is illegal and
arbitrary. There is no material in support of the allegation that the progeny of
cow where being transported by his vehicle for slaughtering. The
confiscation order goes against right to property of its registered owner
which is a constitutional right under Article 300-A and in view of
confiscation order the revisionist is deprived of his right to occupation as the
vehicle is the means of livelihood of its registered owner and his family. The
arbitrary act of confiscation of property which he might be using for his
trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the
fundamental right of citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that the revisionist
is the actual owner of the said vehicle and it is only his means of livelihood.
The vehicle in question has to be released. Learned counsel for the
revisionist has relied upon the law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gurajat, (2002) 10 SCC 283
and the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this court
passed in Criminal Revision No. 6320 of 2024 (Sairunisha Versus State of
U.P.). There is no useful purpose for keeping the vehicle. He has pointed out
that revisionist is also released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the revisionist has
committed the serious offence and this revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. The transportation of cow etc. is regulated by section 5A and section
5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act which confers powers upon the District
Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate/seize 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. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that none
of the cow were maimed nor physically injured. Further, the allegation that
they were being transported from Chandauli route to Bihar for slaughtering
requires no consideration as the condition precedent for the application of
the section is that the cattle described in the Act should have been
transported from any place in the State of U.P. to any place outside the State.

10. Even if the story of seizure of cattle is believed, then also six bulls and
one cow of cow are said to have been seized within the local jurisdiction
within the State of U.P. The fact remains that cattle were apprehended within
the State of U.P. and, therefore, it cannot be maintained that they were
transported to a place outside the State of U.P.

11. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings initiated in terms of said F.I.R.
have not culminated so far, thus, the allegations in the F.I.R. are yet to be
established. Commission of offence is one of the requisite ingredients for
passing an order of confiscation and an order of confiscation should not be
passed automatically. Thus, there is no material, as exists on record, to
justify the exercise of powers under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A. The same
is appeared to be contrary to the statutory mandate and powers conferred
                                                                                              CRLR No. 5163 of 2025
                                                                    3

                                    upon the District Magistrate.

                                    12. The confiscation by its very connotation implies depriving a person of
                                    his property to which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the
                                    Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his
                                    property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property
                                    which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious
                                    encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of
                                    the Constitution of India to carry on his trade, occupation or business. The
                                    procedure prescribed by law for confiscating the property, as contained in
                                    Section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act, empowers the District
                                    Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate/seize the vehicle only if the
                                    conditions so prescribed under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A are fulfilled.

                                    13. The provisions of Section 5A manifest that no permit is required for
                                    transportation of progeny of cow within State of U.P. from one place to
                                    another, and there is no material in support of the allegation that the cattle
                                    were being transported from State of U.P. to Bihar in violation of relevant
                                    statutory provisions.

                                    14. In view of the foregoing consideration, reasons, facts and circumstances,
                                    the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate,
                                    Ghazipur is set aside.

                                    15. The District Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate release order in
                                    regard to vehicle after taking a personal bond and surety in the like amount
                                    from the registered owner of the vehicle to his satisfaction with undertaking
                                    to produce the same before him or the court as and when required within one
                                    week on production of certified copy of this order.

                                    16. The criminal revision succeeds and is allowed.
                                    March 16, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                               (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad