AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the imposition of the condition of payment of Rs.200/- per day while releasing the vehicle of the Petitioner, which was seized in connection with Crime No.49/2025 registered at Police Station Korchi for offences punishable under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 9 and 11 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act.
The learned Counsel, Mr. Opai, appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurkheda. The onerous condition of depositing an amount of Rs.200/- per day was challenged by the Petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, by filing Criminal Revision Application No.34/2025. The Revisional Court, vide its order dated 12.02.2025, partly allowed the Criminal Revision, thereby granting some relaxation in respect of the costs directed by the learned trial Court. However, it was directed that 50% of the amount of costs be paid immediately and the remaining 50% be paid after a period of three months.
. The learned Counsel, Mr. Opai, submits that the imposition of such a condition, which is not possible for the Petitioner to comply with, is an onerous condition. The said condition has made the compliance almost impossible, and consequently, the vehicle continues to remain in the custody of the police. The learned Counsel further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2002 SC 283, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the opinion that there is no purpose in keeping the seized vehicles at police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking suitable bond, guarantee, and security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. The learned Counsel further relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roshan Omkar Tarare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., delivered on 10.02.2023 whereby this Court has again allowed the petition for release of vehicle in favour of the owner. The learned Counsel submits that the vehicle is still lying at the police station and is subject to deterioration due to passage of time. As the Petitioner is not in a financial condition to comply with the said direction, the imposition of costs upon the Petitioner may therefore be cancelled, and the release of the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner may be allowed upon furnishing an undertaking, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra).
The learned APP Mr. Ghogre strongly opposed the petition on the ground that the costs were rightly imposed by the Trial Court in view of Rules 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017, wherein the owner of the vehicle is also held equally responsible and jointly and severally liable for the costs of transport, treatment, and care of animals. The Revisional Court has also taken into consideration the said Rules of 2017 and granted release to the Petitioner by directing deposit of 50% of the amount immediately and the remaining 50% after a period of three months. The impugned orders are just and proper and are liable to be maintained. He therefore prays for rejection of the petition.
Though Respondent No.2/Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, was duly served, none appeared on its behalf for a considerable period of time. This Court adjourned the matter repeatedly only for service upon Respondent No.2/Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, where the cattle are allegedly being taken care of. The learned APP, upon instructions, made a statement on the last date that Respondent No.2/Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, was served and informed about the pendency of the petition, which fact is also recorded in the order dated 06.05.2026.
I have gone through the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurkheda, as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. A perusal of the orders dated 18.12.2025 and 02.09.2025, though detailed and referring to the relevant provisions of law, fails to take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle but is not even an accused in the said crime. The Petitioner is only seeking release of the vehicle and not release of the cattle. The imposition of such an onerous condition while granting release of the said vehicle, making it almost impossible for the owner to comply with, would not yield any fruitful purpose. Th Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) was pleased to observe as under :
“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time.”
The perusal of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017” for brevity) shows that Rule 5 pertains to the execution of bond and the clauses therein are enumerated therein, which impose conditions to be necessarily complied with by the Magistrate while handing over custody of animals to an infirmary, Pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization, or Gaushala. Rule 5(5), relied upon by both the learned Courts for imposing the condition of payment of Rs.200 per day, is on a misconcieved notion that the owner of the vehicle can also be held liable to pay the costs of maintenance (while releasing the vehicle). The said Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 nowhere speaks of any condition to be imposed by the Magistrate while releasing a vehicle in favour of its owner, who is not even an accused in the said crime. Thus, the reliance placed by both the learned Courts below on Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 2017, in my considered opinion, is erroneous and, therefore, calls for interference by this Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case i.e. Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 pertaining to an offence under the NDPS act was pleased to hold as under :
“33.Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.
Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.
34.This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.”
Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Bishwajit Dey (supra), it appears that in the third and fourth scenarios, where the owner of the vehicle is not even added as an accused, the vehicle can be released upon the owner furnishing an appropriate undertaking that the vehicle shall be produced before the learned Magistrate as and when directed, and also upon execution of a bond with guarantee by the owner of the vehicle. There is no reason why the said criteria laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey (supra) should not apply to offences under the Maharashtra Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, wherein the Petitioner is also not added as an accused. The Petitioner is ready to give an undertaking to produce the said vehicle as and when required and directed by the trial Court and is also ready to execute a bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The record of the trial Court further shows that the JMFC, Kurkheda, had issued notice on the application filed by the Petitioner; however, Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, remained absent. The application thus proceeded without any say from the learned APP or Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, District Bhandara. No application has been filed by Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, objecting to the release of the vehicle, nor has any prayer been made by it for payment of costs towards maintenance of the cattle directed to be in its possession. Be that as it may, for the reasons stated hereinabove, I am inclined to release the vehicle subject to the undertaking as mentioned herein-above in terms of the judgment of Bishwajit Dey (supra). Hence the following order :
ORDER
The Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned orders, insofar as they impose the condition of depositing an amount of Rs.200/- per day for release of the vehicle, are hereby cancelled. The vehicle shall be released by the concerned Police Station upon preparation of an appropriate panchanama of the said vehicle. The Petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the learned JMFC, Kurkheda, and execute a bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for release of the said vehicle.
The temporary release of vehicle is subject to the Petitioner tendering the photocopy of document of ownership of vehicle to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.
The temporary custody is handed over on condition that the vehicle shall not be used in any crime.
The Petitioner shall provide photograph of vehicle from all sides to the Investigating Officer. The detail panchnama of the vehicle shall be made by the Investigating Officer and place it along with photographs.
The Petitioner shall not hand over possession of vehicle to third party, nor alienate or change the outer appearance of vehicle till conclusion of trial.
The Petitioner shall produce the vehicle in the Court as and when required.
With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.