CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.675/2026 PETITIONER: Vilasrao S/o Panjabrao Dhande Aged about 60 years, Occu – Business/Agriculturist, R/o Uttamsara, Tq. Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati. ...VERSUS… RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Tiosa, Tq. Tiosa, District – Amravati. 2. Bhagwan Shri Parshuram Go Seva Trust, through its Representative, Mr. Ajitpal Harjeetsingh Mongga, having address at Nandgaon Peth, Tq. and Dist. Amravati. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, APP for respondent No.1/State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 10/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 20/08/2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No.46/2026, thereby confirming the order dated 2026:BHC-NAG:12262 CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 2 24/06/2026, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa in Other Misc. Criminal Application No.43/2026, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of custody of 11 bulls/animals. 3. Mr. Gandhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that First Information Report was registered on 14/05/2026 on the ground that cattle were found to be transported in cruel manner and hence, the offence was registered. The driver was arrested and upon interrogation, it was found that the cattle were belonging to the present petitioner. The present petitioner is also arrayed as an accused in the said crime. After the cattle were seized, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa for release of the seized animals under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The respondent No.2 – Go-Seva Trust had also filed an intervention application. Both applications came to be decided vide order dated 24/06/2026. The respondent No.2- Go-Seva Trust was granted interim custody of the seized 11 bulls and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.200/- per day per animal to Gaushala from the date of custody of animals. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24/06/2026, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa in Other Misc. Criminal Application No.43/2026, had therefore filed Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati by CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 3 his judgment and order dated 20/08/2026 has rejected the Revision and maintained the order passed by the learned Trial Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for Supratnama after filing of the charge-sheet. 4. Mr. Gandhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a licence-holder for purchase and sale of the animals, which was issued by the APMC, Amravati. The licence was to operate from the year 2020, however, the same was not renewed from a very long time. The cattle were purchased from APMC, Gondia and Grampanchayat, Mohgaon (Nandi), The APMC, Gondia had issued a receipt to the petitioner on 10/05/2026 for purchase of 02 bulls, whereas Grampanchayat, Mohgaon (Nandi) had issued a receipt on 12/05/2026 for purchase of 09 bulls. The said bulls were carried in a EICHER truck bearing registration No. MH-32/AJ-2233. The driver was arrested along with cattle while transporting the cattle in the said vehicle and the vehicle as well as cattle were seized. The learned Counsel further submits that Mohammad Ahmad, who was the owner of the vehicle, had already filed an application for release of the vehicle and as such the vehicle was released vide order dated 01/07/2026 by directing the owner of the vehicle to pay Rs.200/- per day for maintenance of the cattle, in compliance of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 4 Rules, 2017 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2017”). The owner was also directed to execute a bond of Rs.41,800/-. 5. Mr. Gandhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 01/07/2026, the owner of the vehicle had deposited the necessary charges for maintenance of cattle with Gaushala and the Gaushala had issued a communication, giving no objection for release of the vehicle and accordingly, the vehicle was released. No objection given by the Gaushala, signed by the President of the Go-Seva Trust, is placed on record and is marked as “X” for the purpose of identification. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once amount of charges for maintenance of the cattle in pursuance to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 was already directed to be paid while release of the vehicle, the learned Trial Court again directing the owner of the cattle to pay an amount of Rs.200/- from the date of seizure of the cattle is onerous and ought not to have been directed, particularly when the custody of the animals is also not being handed over to the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Gandhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner belatedly though had procured a licence in trading the sale and purchase of the cattle from APMC, Amravati. The petitioner has been able to show the proper receipts issued from APMC, Gondia and the Grampanchayat Mohgaon (Nandi) to show that the CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 5 cattle were purchased properly. The petitioner is also not involved in either identical offence earlier, hence, the learned Trial Court ought to have granted custody of the said cattle to the present petitioner. The petitioner is further ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. However, both the learned Courts below i.e. Trial Court as well as Revisional Court have failed to take into consideration the aforesaid fact and mechanically rejected the application of the present petitioner as Rules 3 to 5 of the Rules of 2017 mandate to give direction to handover the custody only to Pinjrapole and Gaushala, without taking into consideration the claim of the owner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and another Vs. Chakram Moraji Nat and others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2769 to buttress his submission that petitioner was able to establish the ownership of the cattle and is not involved in any earlier incidents of identical nature and therefore the petitioner is having first and preferential right over the Pinjrapole or Gaushala. Hence, both the orders passed by the learned Courts below in ignorance of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra) are liable to the quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions that would CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 6 be imposed by this Court. The impugned orders may be quashed and set aside, granting custody of the cattle to the petitioner. 8. Mrs. Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State strongly objects to the prayer made in the petition. She further submits that the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has failed to show that he had a licence to trade in animals. There are charges of animals being treated with cruelty while transporting them. The receipts are also found to be doubtful. The licence itself is renewed only after conducting the raid. The Trial Court was therefore very well justified in directing the custody to be placed with Gaushala, in view of mandate of Rule 3 to 5 of the Rules, 2017. The petitioner has also been directed to jointly and severally bear the maintenance expenses, in view of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017. There is no error committed on the part of the learned Courts below. The impugned orders are just and proper and are liable to be maintained. 9. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 20/08/2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No.46/2026. I have also gone through the order dated 24/06/2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa in Other Criminal Misc. Application No.43/2026. Perusal of the receipts show that two cattle were purchased on 10/05/2026 from CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 7 the APMC, Gondia, whereas nine bulls were purchased from Grampanchayat, Mohgaon (Nandi) on 12/05/2026. The vehicle was allegedly carrying the aforesaid cattle without taking proper care. There is further apprehension raised by the prosecution that the cattle were being taken for slaughtering. There is no evidence in the entire charge- sheet to corroborate the aforesaid apprehension. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents of identical nature. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra) was pleased to observe as under :- “10. Now adverting to the contention that under Section 35(2), in the event of the animal not being sent to infirmary, the Magistrate is bound to give the interim custody to Pinjrapole, we find it difficult to accede to it. We have noted above the options available to the Magistrate under Section 35(2). That sub-section vests in the Magistrate the discretion to give interim custody of the animal to Pinjrapole. The material part of sub-section (shorn of other details) will read, the Magistrate may direct that the animal concerned shall be sent to a Pinjrapole. Sub-section (2) does not say that the Magistrate shall send the animals to Pinjrapole. It is thus evident that the expression "shall be sent" is part of the direction to be given by the Magistrate if in his discretion he decides to give interim custody to Pinjrapole. It follows that under Section 35 (2) of the Act, the Magistrate has discretion to handover interim custody of the animal to Pinjrapole but he is not bound to handover custody of the animal to Pinjrapole in the event of not sending it to an infirmary. In a case where the owner is claiming the CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 8 custody of the animal, Pinjrapole has no preferential right. In deciding whether the interim custody of the animal be given to the owner who is facing prosecution, or to the Pinjrapole, the following factors will be be relevant: (1) the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the owner: (2) whether it is the first offence alleged or he has been found guilty of offences under the Act earlier; (3) if the owner is facing the first prosecution under the Act, the animal is not liable to be seized, so the owner will have a better claim for the custody of the animal during the prosecution: (4) the condition in which the animal was found at the time of inspection and seizure; (5) the possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty. There cannot be any doubt that establishment of Pinjrapole is with the laudable object of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and providing protection to them and birds. But it should also be seen, (a) whether the Pinjrapole is functioning as an independent organization or under the scheme of the Board and is answerable to the Board; and (b) whether the Pinjrapole has good record of taking care of the animals given under its custody. A perusal of the order of the High Court shows that the High Court has taken relevant factors into consideration in coming to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the State to handover the custody of animals to the owner.” 10. Perusal of the order dated 01/07/2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa while releasing the vehicle in favour of the owner of the vehicle also shows that an amount of CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 9 Rs.200/- per day was imposed upon while releasing the vehicle from the date of seizure of the animals till the release order. 11. Mr. Gandhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no objection certificate is issued by the Gaushala Trust after receiving compensation. The office-note shows that notice issued to Go-Seva Trust, the respondent No.2, is still awaited. The matter was heard on the last occasion i.e. on 31/08/2026. Vide order dated 31/08/2026, the Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to intimate Go-Seva Trust about pendency of the present petition and submit an acknowledgment. Today, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record the Station Diary entry to the effect that the respondent No.2-Go Seva Trust was informed about the pendency of the present petition, however, nobody turned up for presenting the respondent No.2. This Court has found that fine of Rs.200/- per day from the date of seizure of animals has already been imposed while releasing the vehicle vide order dated 01/07/2026 and that the vehicle is already released in favour of the owner of the vehicle. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the vehicle is already released in favour of the owner in pursuance to the order dated 01/07/2026, passed by the learned Trial Court. It appears that fine of Rs.200/- per day, which was imposed for releasing the vehicle, was not taken into consideration while passing again an order imposing fine of Rs.200/- per day while releasing the CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 10 custody of the cattle. Both the impugned orders appear to have been passed without application of mind to the aforesaid fact. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that neither the Pinjrapole nor the Gaushala has any preferential right over the owner, when the owner seeks custody, particularly when owner is involved in the first prosecution and that there is no criminal antecedents of identical nature attributed to the owner. 12. Thus, taking into consideration the error committed by both the learned Courts below, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 20/08/2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No.46/2026 and the order dated 24/06/2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiosa in Other Misc. Criminal Application No.43/2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks. CRI. WP 675 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 11 (iv) Upon deposit of amount of Rs.25,000/- before the learned Trial Court by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, the respondent No.2 shall handover the custody of 11 bulls/cattle, seized in the crime, to the present petitioner. (v) The Trial Court shall allow the respondent No.2 - Go-Seva Trust to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards additional maintenance charges. (vi) The respondent No.1 shall take inspection and prepare a detailed panchanama regarding condition of the cattle and take the photographs of the said cattle while handing over the same to the petitioner by the respondent No.2. (vii) Rules is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Wadkar Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 16/09/2026 14:25:25