46wp1101-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 46 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2020 Navkar Goshala Panjarpole Sanstha, Dhule Through Its Authorized Representative Shriniwas Dhuppad VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1188 OF 2020 Navkar Goshala Panjarpole Sanstha, Dhule Through Its Authorized Representative Shriniwas Dhuppad VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ... Mr. Karan V. Sarosiya h/for Mr. Bora Satyajit S., Advocate for the Petitioner ,APP for Respondents Mr. K. S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent State Ms. Vaishali S. Swami h/for Mr. M. C. Swami, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. Dated : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a pursis stating that on 18.02.2026, he issued a notice to the petitioner through speed post and as per the postal tracking report, the same has been delivered on 21.02.2026. He also made telephonic communication with the petitioner but he has not received any instructions till date. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 also made a statement that she has no instructions from her client. 2. Needless to say that on 13.10.2020, the petitioner has filed the 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:9396 46wp1101-20 present petition challenging the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.22 of 2020, whereby quashed and set aside the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the learned JMFC, Dhule in Cri. Misc. Application No. 475 of 2020 and granted interim custody of bullocks in favour of respondent no.2. The Petitioner appears to be Cow Shelter (Goshala) and is not the owner of seized bullocks. The learned Judicial Magistrate, granted custody of cattle in favour of respondent No.2 who is owner of the cattle. Therefore, the impugned order does not appear to be illegal or bad in law. No grounds are set out in the petition to interfere with the impugned order. 3. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has already served a private notice upon the petitioner; however, no instructions have been received in pursuance of the said notice, which shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 4. In view of the above discussion, the petitions are dismissed. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) JPChavan 2 of 2