1 2026:CGHC:23698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P No.1264 of 2026 Ajay Vaman S/o Shri Vaman Tembhune Aged About 45 Years Occupation Businessman, R/o Hanumant Ward No. 02, Thana Pauni, Tahsil Pauni, Distt. Bhandara, Maharashtra. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant :Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State :Shri Vivek Sharma, PL. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.06.16 15:22:36 +0530 2 2. The present Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, affirming the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioner under Sections 497/503 of the BNSS for release of cattle on Supurdnama has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in Crime No.154/2026 registered at Police Station Mahasamund for offences punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act and Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 12 female buffaloes and 6 calves belonging to the Petitioner were seized along with relevant documents. It is contended that under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, seized cattle are required to remain in the custody of the nearest registered Gaushala, Gosadan, cattle protection institution, or other registered institution till conclusion of the trial. 4. The Petitioner moved an application for release of the said cattle on Supurdnama. The said application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund vide order dated 02.04.2026, which came to be affirmed by the learned 1st 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund vide order dated 21.04.2026. Hence, the present Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the lawful owner of the seized cattle. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam , Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 decided on 07.01.2025 and submits that where continued retention of the seized property serves no useful purpose, the same may be released on Supurdnama subject to appropriate conditions. It is further submitted that retention of the cattle in the present case would serve no purpose, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. He, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the Respondent authorities to release the seized cattle to the Petitioner on Supurdnama. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the cattle were illegally being transported and therefore, opposes the prayer for release of the same on Supurdnama. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The record would reflect that the seized 12 buffaloes and 6 buffalo calves are presently under custody pursuant to the seizure effected on 25.03.2026. The Petitioner has asserted ownership 4 over the seized cattle and has placed documents in support thereof. 9. The seized cattle are living creatures requiring proper care, fodder, water and medical attention. Continued retention of the animals pending trial would serve no useful purpose. Rather, their welfare can be adequately safeguarded by releasing them on interim custody subject to appropriate conditions. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, held that seized property should not be allowed to remain in custody for an unnecessarily long period and appropriate orders for interim release ought to be passed. Further, in Bishwajit Dey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that continued retention of seized property pending trial, when no useful purpose would be served thereby, is not warranted and appropriate orders for interim release may be passed subject to necessary conditions. 11. Considering the nature of the property seized, the documents placed on record by the Petitioner in support of his claim and the fact that the seized cattle are required to be properly maintained, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by continuing their custody pending trial. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) 5 and Bishwajit Dey (supra), the impugned orders passed by the concerned Courts rejecting interim custody of the seized cattle cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, affirming the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, is set aside. 14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that till disposal of the criminal case, the interim custody of the seized 12 buffaloes and 6 buffalo calves be handed over to the Petitioner on Supurdnama, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priya