1 29 ABA 837.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.837/2026 (Nasir @ Kalu Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. S. Band, Advocate for applicant. Ms. S. N. Thakur, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 06/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered with Police Station Bhiwapur, Nagpur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”) read with Sections 11(1) (d), (e) and (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Preservation Act, Sections 184, 134 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 5-A and 9 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and Section 118 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05/02/2026 information was received by the informant that cattle have been abandoned in an injured condition at 2 29 ABA 837.26 the spot of the incident. On receiving the information, the informant reached the spot and found a total of eight cattle in a vehicle out of which five were found to be seriously injured, while three cattle were found to be dead. Based on this, the first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that only on the basis of the statement of co-accused, the applicant has been implicated in the said crime. Even if the allegations are taken as it is and the statement of the co- accused is accepted, the maximum punishment provided is of 6 months for the alleged offences except for Section 325 of the BNS which has been wrongly invoked against the applicant even though the ingredients of the said section are not made out. The allegations in the FIR are that the information was received that a light commercial vehicle was carrying 8 cattle. However, it met with an accident and in that 3 cattle were killed and 5 were injured. During enquiry, it was found that the present applicant was driving the said vehicle making him an accomplice in the crime. However, the learned counsel submits that apart from the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is 3 29 ABA 837.26 involved in the crime. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant was involved in a similar type of offence previously also. Sufficient material has been collected by the investigating officer during investigation and it transpired that the applicant was in contact with co-accused Shrikant. His connection to Shrikant and similar criminal antecedent discloses that the applicant is doing illegal business of cattle smuggling and they were being carried for the purpose of slaughter. Since the applicant is indulged in similar type of offence, Section 111 of the BNS has also been subsequently invoked against the applicant. Under such circumstances, she submits that the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, it could be gathered that one light motor vehicle met with an accident which was carrying eight cattle. It further appears that out of eight cattle, three died while five were injured. It is alleged that the said cattle were being carried 4 29 ABA 837.26 for the purpose of slaughter. However, upon perusal of the case diary, it does not show that the said cattle were being carried for the purpose of slaughter. So far as the role of the applicant is concerned, apart from the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant is indulged in the said crime. Though it appears that there are some call detail records between the co-accused Shrikant and the present applicant, that itself is not sufficient to suggest that the applicant is involved in the present crime. Merely Section 111 of the BNS is invoked that by itself will not preclude this Court from granitng bail. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that a case is made out to grant anticipatory bail. So far as Sections 111 and 325 of the BNS are concerned, the applicability of those provisions can be considered during the appropriate stage by the Trial Court. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (I) Application is allowed and disposed of. (II) In the event of arrest, the applicant Nasir @ Kalu Qureshi be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered with Police Station Bhiwapur, Nagpur Rural for the offences punishable under 5 29 ABA 837.26 Sections 325 and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”) read with Sections 11(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Preservation Act, Sections 184, 134 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 5-A and 9 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and Section 118 of the Maharashtra Police Act on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (III) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. or as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (IV) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 8. The observation of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/10/2026 19:22:17