SUMIT KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14284 of 2026

Sumit Kumar Singh
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)           : Brijesh Singh, Sushil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 81
                     HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused
the record.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant
with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned
Additional       District   and   Sessions    Judge/F.T.C.   (14th    Finance
Commission),Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Criminal Misc. Case No.
424 of 2024, State v. Shivam Savita, arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of
2021, under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali,
District Kanpur Dehat.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report
as Case Crime No. 26 of 2021 under Section 363 I.P.C. was registered at
Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat against an unknown person.
During investigation, the role of the applicant with other co-accused persons
were found in commission of crime. After investigation, a charge-sheet
under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 I.P.C. was filed. During investigation, a
Swift Desire car bearing No. UP-78-FL-0273 was seized by the police on
28.01.2021 with an allegation that the applicant along with co-accused
persons committed murder of the deceased by using a rope and threw the
dead-body in a canal. The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle.
The applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
19.12.2022. After his release, he filed an application for releasing of the
vehicle but the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by stating that
the case is pending for recording the statement of P.W.-1 Dinesh Singh and
in case the vehicle is released, the applicant can tamper with the condition of
                                                          NA528 No. 14284 of 2026
                                  2

the vehicle, whereas the applicant has undertaken that he will not tamper the
vehicle or destroy the evidence. The vehicle is kept in the police station from
the long period. Its condition is deteriorating and utility of the vehicle is also
affecting, therefore, the order dated 03.10.2025 may be set-aside and the
Trial Court may be directed to release the vehicle in favour of the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the submissions so advanced by the
learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant along with
the co-accused person have committed murder of the deceased in the said car
by a rope and threw dead-body in the canal. The rope was seized from the
said car. The trial is at the state of evidence. In case the vehicle is released,
the applicant may tamper its condition. The learned Trial Court has not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, this
application may be rejected.
5. As per the fact of this case, a missing report regarding the deceased Lucky
was lodged at the police station concerned on 17.01.2021 that Lucky was
missing since 16.01.2021. On 25.01.2021, a dead-body was found near the
local river which was identified as the dead body of Lucky on the next day.
In the post mortem report 7 injuries were found on the person of the
deceased. The cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of
ante mortem strangulation. The name of the present applicant came into light
after recovery of the dead body. An application dated 27.01.2021 was given
by the father of the deceased at police station concerned that when Lucky
was going from his house, he had informed that his brother-in-law (Jija), the
present applicant and Shivam were calling him telephonically and after that
only the dead body of the deceased was found. Later on in the confession of
Shivam, it has come that the present applicant and co accused Ashok Kumar,
Sumit and Suraj Kumar committed murder of Lucky. The applicant was
driving the car. From the rear seat of the car Ashok Kumar and Sumit
tangling the neck of the deceased with a rope put him to death, he could not
even raise any alarm. Then they threw his dead body in the canal. At the
pointing out of Sumit, Suraj Kumar and Ashok Kumar, the rope used in the
murder of the deceased is said to have been recovered.
6. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The applicant filed an
application for release of the said vehicle by stating that he is the registered
owner of the same. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.10.2025 has
dismissed the said application by stating that the case is pending at the stage
                                                        NA528 No. 14284 of 2026
                                3

of recording the statement of P.W.-1 Dinesh Singh and also declined the
prayer of the applicant by stating that the case is related to a heinous crime
and the trial is pending an the applicant may tamper with the evidence. The
said vehicle is detained from a long period and its condition may be
deteriorate and utility of the vehicle may affected if it is kept for a long
period.
7. In the light of the contentions of both the parties, this Court has gone
through the facts and circumstances on record. The law is very much clear
pertaining to release of the case property as is laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desi versus State of
Gujrat reported in 2003 (46) ACC 223, in which it is held that the powers
under section 457 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and
judicially, as it would serve various purposes. Seized articles should be
handed over to the person to whom the same belong and for this purpose the
Court may adopt the procedure of recording evidence required for, bond and
security may be taken, photographs of such articles may be taken and the
same should be attested and counter signed by the person concerned to
whom the property is to be delivered and the accused of the case thereby
imposing appropriate conditions because getting stationed the property at
Police station for a long period is not useful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also laid down the law that whatever may be the situation, it is of no use to
keep seized vehicle at the Police station for a long period and it is for the
Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate
bond and guaranty, as well as security for return of the vehicle if required at
any point of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also emphasized that it is
expected and trusted for the Magistrates concerned that they would take
immediate action using powers provided for release of property in the
Cr.P.C. properly and promptly and to ensure that the property shall not be
kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than 15
days to one month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clarified that in
case where the accused disputes that he is not involved in the alleged
incident and no article was found from him, then such endorsement be taken
on the photograph with regard to the vehicle and it is made clear that there
can not be any necessity of producing the vehicle before the court and the
seizure report may be sufficient.
8. In the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in this
                                                                                             NA528 No. 14284 of 2026
                                                                     4

                                    regard, this Court is of the view that whatever may be the situation, it is of
                                    no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period.
                                    Certainly, the trial of this case will take a long process and apprehending the
                                    vehicle to be kept unattended at the police station may make the same
                                    junked and also may deteriorate the value of the vehicle and depriving the
                                    owner of the vehicle of its use. Since the proper Panchanama before handing
                                    over the vehicle to its registered owner, can be used in evidence instead of
                                    its production before the court during the trial, there is no use to refuse the
                                    release of the vehicle in favour of applicant. Hence, this Court comes to this
                                    conclusion that the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 is liable to be set aside
                                    and the learned Trial Court is liable to be directed to act upon for releasing
                                    of the vehicle in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
                                    the case of Sundar Bhai Amba Lal Desai (supra).
                                    9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.10.2025, passed by the learned
                                    passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th
                                    Finance Commission), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Criminal Misc.
                                    Case No. 424 of 2024, State v. Shivam Savita, arising out of Case Crime No.
                                    26 of 2021, under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 I.P.C. Police Station
                                    Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat, is set-aside. Learned Additional District and
                                    Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance Commission), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur
                                    Dehat) is directed to pass a fresh order within one month of receiving a
                                    certified copy of this order as per provisions of law.
                                    10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.
                                    11. Let this order be communicated to the Learned Additional District and
                                    Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Finance Commission), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur
                                    Dehat) by the Registrar (Compliance).


                                                                                             (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    April 8, 2026
                                    Vijay




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad