Ajaj Abbas Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs Kolhe, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15-01-2026 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Revision No.33/2025, whereby the revision application filed by the applicant against the order dated 23-06-2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 42/2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Armori, came to be rejected. By the said order, the application filed by the applicant seeking release of his vehicle on supratnama was rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, pursuant to a raid conducted by the police authorities, the vehicle belonging to the applicant was seized and its driver was arrested for allegedly committing cruelty to animals. The applicant, being the registered owner of the vehicle, moved an application seeking release of the vehicle on supratnama. However, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that the applicant could not remain present at the time of hearing of the application. The applicant has placed on record the relevant documents to establish that he is the owner of the seized vehicle. The application, however, came to be rejected on the ground that the applicant had previously been involved in a similar offence, being Crime No. 140/2025 dated 09-03-2025.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to show his bona fides by depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- as security. He further undertakes that no identical offence shall be committed by him by using the said vehicle in future. It is further submitted that the revisional Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the seized vehicle should not be allowed to remain idle and deteriorate by being exposed to the elements and should ordinarily be released on supratnama, subject to an undertaking by the owner to produce the vehicle before the trial Court as and when required. The applicant undertakes to keep the vehicle in proper condition and to make the same available before the trial Court as and when directed, during the pendency of the trial. The applicant is ready to show his bonafides by depositing an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the application may kindly be allowed by releasing the seized vehicle on supratnama, and the impugned order passed by the revisional Court may be quashed and set aside.

As against this, the learned APP strongly opposes the application on the ground that both the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, have recorded a finding that the applicant is a habitual offender and has repeatedly indulged in identical offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is submitted that the earlier offence, bearing Crime No. 140/2025, was also registered against the applicant under Section 11 (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as well as under the provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The applicant was released in the said crime by the learned JMFC, Gadchiroli, vide order dated 25-03-2025, subject to a specific condition that he shall not use the said vehicle for committing any similar or identical offence. However, despite the said condition, the applicant has allegedly committed the present offence, bearing Crime No.162/2025, registered with Armori Police Station. Thus, there is a prima facie indication that the applicant has failed to abide by the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate while releasing him in the earlier crime. It is further submitted that, if the seized vehicle is released in favour of the present applicant, there is every likelihood that he may again indulge in similar activities and use the vehicle for committing cruelty to animals. Therefore, considering the applicant's previous involvement in a similar offence and the specific condition imposed in the earlier order, the learned Courts below have rightly rejected the application for release of the vehicle on supratnama. Hence, the learned APP submits that the impugned order is just and proper and is thus liable to be maintained.

I have gone through the order dated 23-06-2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 42/2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Armori and the order 15-01-2026 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Revision Application No.33/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) was pleased to observed as under :-

Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid observations and the voluntary statement made by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- before the learned Trial Court towards security, in order to show his bona fides and to ensure that he shall not hereafter commit any identical offence or use the said vehicle for committing such offences, I am inclined to pass the following order:

Rule is made absolute in above terms.