Dharamendra Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another

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 (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.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 6, 2026

Mukesh