Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
Abdul Majeed S/o Abdul Nabi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of both the sides.
2. In both these Petitions, the common question arises i.e. whether the Petitioners who are owners of the seized vehicles for the offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, 1960 and Rules are entitled for custody of vehicles on payment of transport, treatment and animal care charges from the date of receipt of custody of the animals by the Animal Care take shelter (Gaushala) till final disposal of the animals?.
3. In Writ Petition No. 1145 of 2024, the Petitioner No.1 Abdul Majeed s/o Abdul Nabi, claimed to be the owner of vehicle No.AP-07 TB-4911. The petitioner No.2 Kureshi Hymad Ussain s/o Yakub Sab, claimed to be the owner of vehicle bearing No.TS-16-UB 6896. Both these vehicles appear to be seized on 01.02.2024 while transporting 39 cattle in the vehicles, mercilessly in cruel manner. It is alleged that, the legs, heads and body of animals were tied by ropes. As per the F.I.R., dated 01.02.2024 lodged by the Police Head Constable Shri Raman Fakira Gedam it appears that, he seized 39 cattle (39 Buffaloes) and both the vehicles, which were
Vehicle owners are liable for maintenance charges of animals during custody, and interim custody can be granted under specific conditions to prevent deterioration of vehicle value.
Section 35 of the Act provides that for proper care and treatment of animals in respect of which offences under this Act have been committed, such animal can be kept in pinjrapole with a direction th....
Interim custody of seized property under Section 451 of Cr. P.C. should be granted absent rival claims, focusing on preservation pending trial.
Ownership of animals does not guarantee custody if the owner fails to comply with legal requirements for their transport and care, as established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused, prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals, was not entitled to interim custody of the seized cattle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory consideration of the provisions of the PCA Act and the 2017 Rules, particularly Rule 5, before deciding on the release of vehicles in....
Seized vehicles must be released to owners unless confiscation proceedings are initiated; conditions include deposit of bank guarantees and ensuring no illegal use.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
