p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.481 of 2026 Nagarathnamma …. Petitioner Mr. S.K.Barik, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Ms. B.Sahu, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 23.07.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decisions by order dated 9th June, 2026 passed in connection with Khurda Sadar P.S. Case No.85 of 2026 by the learned SDJM, Khordha arising out of G.R. Case No.247 of 2026 whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS seeking interim release and custody of the seized EICHER PRO 3019 bearing Regd. No. KA-07-B-7435 in his favour has been allowed but subject to a deposit towards cost etc. and other conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question allegedly seized in connection with the case pending in the file of learned court below corresponding to Khurda Sadar P.S. Case No.85 of p. 2 2026 registered under Sections 281/303(3)/351(2)/3(5) BNS IPC read with Sections 11(a)(d)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990 (shortly as ‘the PCA Act’). It is further submitted that the petitioner is having no other source of income and hence, the seizure vehicle should be released in his favour without imposing any such condition directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.4,04,000/-(Rupees four lakh four thousand) payable to the Amrutadhara Trust, Khurda towards expenditure, cost etc. vis-à-vis maintenance of the cattle left in their zima. The further submission is that the valuation of the vehicle in question as per the ARTO is Rs. 4,04,000/-and hence, any such payment of cost by the petitioner is hugely disproportionate and hence, the said condition should be dispensed with directing its release in his favour with the fulfillment of other conditions and to that extent, the impugned order dated 9th June, 2026 at Annexure-2 is required to be modified. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State submits that the expenditure already incurred and to be borne by the Foundation is required to be deposited by the petitioner in view of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and hence, it has been so directed by the learned court below for the petitioner to make deposit in terms thereof. In support of such contention, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA cited a decision of this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021(II) OLR 1016, wherein, it has been held that the provisions of the p. 3 PCA Act and Rules framed thereunder are mandatorily to be followed at the time while considering interim release of the vehicles involved in illicitly transporting the cattle. 5. In fact, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and sub-rule (2) thereof, the Magistrate shall consider the rate specified by the Animal Welfare Board or the District Magistrate as the case may be for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized animals while directing its deposit in terms of Section 35(4) of the PCA Act. The rates specified by the Animals Welfare Board of India have been reproduced by this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad (supra) and according to Ms. Sahu, learned AGA, it has been duly followed while directing the petitioner to deposit the cost towards maintenance, transport, etc. in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation. A calculation has been reached at by the learned court below accordingly and at last, an amount of Rs. 4,04,000/-has been directed to be deposited by the petitioner to the concerned Foundation. While considering the application for release under Section 503 BNSS. the learned court below has imposed such other conditions to be complied with by the petitioner besides deposit of the cost. But, considering the report of the ARTO regarding the valuation of the seized vehicle stands at Rs. 4,04,000/-and the deposit having been directed is for an amount of Rs. 4,04,000/-, the predicament of the petitioner and his inability to comply such a condition as against the valuation of the vehicle in question, the Court is of the humble opinion that in view of Rule 4 of the Rules and provisions of the PCA Act, he cannot avoid making any such payment towards p. 4 maintenance and other cost in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation but at the same time, to direct the petitioner to make a onetime deposit for an amount of Rs. 4,04,000/-would not be appropriate. Hence, the Court is inclined to direct the learned court below to consider interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.75,000/-by the petitioner and thereafter, to go for recovery of the balance in installments. In the considered view of the Court, any such direction to pay the entire amount in lump sum without releasing the vehicle is certainly to cause immense inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner and he should therefore be allowed to take interim custody of the same and simultaneously, to pay back and clear the outstanding balance in installments with an initial deposit of Rs.75,000/-as such a course of action would instead serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. Such is the view of the Court also for the reason that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the local police exposed to sun and rain and it is no profitable either as its conditions is likely to deteriorate being exposed to the vagaries of the climatic conditions. In other words, it is a fit case, where, the above direction is necessary for compliance by the petitioner while receiving the interim custody of the seizure vehicle. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a direction to the learned SDJM, Khordha to allow interim release and custody of the seizure EICHER PRO 3019 bearing p. 5 Regd. No. KA-07-B-7435 in favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership and deposit of Rs.25,000/- in the name of the concerned Trust with an undertaking regarding payment of the balance of the cost in installments. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 9th June, 2026, in Crl. Misc. Case No.64 of 2025 as at Annexure-2 is modified to the extent as aforesaid. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita