9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.627 OF 2026 PETITIONER :- Irfan S/o Roju Deen Age : 47 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o At Village Harsoli, Muzaffarnagar, Dist : Muzaffarnagar. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Samudrapur, Tah: Hinganghat, District: Wardha. 2) Audumbar Gaurakshak Charitable Trust, Reg. Address: Buttibori, Nagpur, District: Nagpur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Y.J. Sheikh, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms Ritu Sharma, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1/State. Ms Meena N. Hiwase, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 11/09/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:12348 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 2 3. The petitioner challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.1), Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha, as well as the order passed below Exh.1 dated 22.04.2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samudrapur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, Irfan Qureshi for releasing 22 cattle (buffaloes) and allowing the interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the owner Khalid Yusuf Qureshi through Mohammad Shakir Mohammad Islam. 4. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the male buffaloes, which were purchased by the petitioner in a cattle market of Aterna, Dist. Muzaffarnagar, and were being transported to Telangana State. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in the said crime being the owner of the said cattle and later on released on bail. The petitioner is the rightful owner of the said cattle and hence the custody of the said cattle was denied to the petitioner only on the apprehension that there was cruelty committed upon the said animals without making arrangement for food and water for them and that the cattle were being transported in breach of the law. 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 3 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and that he is the rightful claimant. The petitioner is further ready to show his bonafides by giving any undertaking that may be directed by this Court and to further abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court for release of the cattle. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deodar and another ..vs.. of Chakram Moraji Nat and others1 and submits that the Pinjrapole or a Gaushala does not have a preferential right over the owner and that if the owner is a first time offender, the cattle can be handed over to the owner of the cattle upon an undertaking given that, the cattle will not be sold and would be made available as and when so directed by the trial Court. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned orders are passed without taking into consideration the settled law in the aforesaid judgment and has passed the impugned orders denying the custody of the cattle to the present petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. As against this, Ms Meena Hiwase, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ms. Ritu Sharma, learned A.P.P. strongly oppose the writ petition on the ground that 1 (AIR 1998 SC 2769) 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 4 the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has found that the petitioner has committed cruelty upon the animals, which were being transported in breach of law. The petitioner was also arrested in the aforesaid crime. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the crime and likelihood the petitioner again committing cruelty upon the seized cattle, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and has further directed the cattle to be kept in the custody of respondent No.2 with a further direction to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.200/- per day for 22 cattles. The impugned orders are just and proper and liable to be maintained. The Revisional Court has also taken into consideration the contention raised by the parties and has found that the purchase receipt submitted by the petitioner is doubtful. The learned Revisional Court has therefore upheld the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision. The impugned orders are just and proper and are liable to be maintained. The petition is devoid of substance and is liable to be rejected. 7. I have gone through the impugned order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Revisional Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha and I have also gone through the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 5 Magistrate First Class, Samudrapur. The learned Judicial Magistrate was dealing with two applications, one filed by the owner of the vehicle and the other filed by the petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the cattle. The application filed by the owner of the vehicle came to be allowed, being OMCA No.45 of 2026, on a condition to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.200/- per day per cattle (for 22 cattle) to respondent No.2, Audumbar Gaurakshan Charitable Trust, Butibori, from the date of custody of the animals. The custody of the animals was handed over on 28.03.2026. The record shows that the vehicle was to be released only upon payment of Rs.200/- per day per cattle. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheikh, submits a receipt of payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to the Audumbar Gaurakshan Charitable Trust and the acknowledgment thereof. The same is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. The said documents also contains communication issued by the Police Station Samudrapur, which bears the signature of the Director of Audumbar Gaurakshan Charitable Trust, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,10,000/- towards the cost for the release of the vehicle as directed by the learned trial Court in its order dated 22.04.2026. 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 6 9. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deodar (supra), was pleased to observe as under:- “9. In view of the above discussion and provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C., it appears to us that unless the owner of the animal in respect of which he is facing prosecution, is deprived of the custody (which can be done only on his conviction under the Act for the second time), no bar can be inferred against him to claim interim custody of the animal. 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 decided to given interim custody to Pinjrapole . It follows that under Section 35(2) of the Act, the Magistrate has discretion to hand over interim custody of the animal to Pinjrapole but he is not bound to hand over 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 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 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.” 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 7 10. The provisions of Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 being analogous to Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “PCA Act, 1960”) confers discretion upon a Magistrate to entrust interim custody of the animals to a Pinjrapole or a Gaushala. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the Magistrate retains the discretion in the matter and the Pinjrapole or a Gaushala does not have a preferential right over the owner. The factors necessary for deciding the application for custody are as under:- i. Nature and gravity of the offence. ii. Whether it is the first offence alleged or he has been found guilty of offences under the act earlier. iii. The condition in which the animal was found at inspection and seizure likelihood of cruelty again. iv. the condition in which the animal was found at the time of inspection and seizure. v. the possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty. 11. One of the important guidelines is to ascertain whether the owner is facing prosecution for the first time under the Act. If it is found that the owner has no criminal antecedents and is facing the first prosecution, the owner would have a better claim for 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 8 interim custody of the animals. 12. In the present case, both the Courts below have failed to consider the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the proper perspective. The petitioner has placed on record documents, including purchase receipts of the cattle. It is the case of the petitioner that he has no criminal antecedents, and it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been involved in any similar offence in the past. 13. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. This fact is not disputed by the learned A.P.P. Thus, it appears that the petitioner is a first offender and as such, the criteria laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court could have been very well taken into consideration while deciding the custody of the animals. The impugned order dated 14.07.2026 by the Revisional Court, as well as the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samudrapur, fails to take into consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of custody of the cattle. The learned trial Court has further directed release of the vehicle on the payment of the maintenance amount of Rs.200/- per day from the date the animals 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 9 were given in custody, i.e. from 28.03.2026, which amount already stands paid jointly and severally by the petitioner who is the owner of the cattle as well as the owner of the vehicle and appropriate cost for maintenance of cattle appears to have been paid as per the acknowledgment issued by the Trust on 23.04.2026 and the further amount for maintenance of the cattle can be directed to be paid to respondent No.2. 14. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below cannot be said to be just and proper. The Courts below have failed to exercise the discretion vested in them in accordance with law and have instead treated Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 as mandatory. A conjoint reading of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 35(2) of the PCA Act, 1960, Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017, and the law laid down in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra), makes it clear that there is no absolute bar and the interim custody of the animals can be given to the owner upon undertaking to produce animals as and when the Trial Court directs. . The discretionary power to entrust custody to a Gaushala cannot be construed as mandatory in blatant disregard of the 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 10 binding guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra). Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.1), Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha, as well as the order passed below Exh.1 dated 22.04.2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samudrapur, are hereby quashed and set aside. iii) Respondent No.2-Gaushala shall hand over the custody of the 22 cattle (male buffaloes) to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today through the concerned Police Station. The concerned Police Station Officers shall remain present at the time of handing over and shall prepare a detailed panchnama noting the condition of the cattle. iii) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the respondent No.2-Gaushala within a period of two weeks. 9.wp.627.2026 Judgmentfinal.odt 11 iv) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer or part with possession of the cattle and shall maintain them in proper health and condition and shall not subject them to any cruelty. v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it would be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of custody granted to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 11:35:19