The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a finding of contravention before forfeiture of a vehicle under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, and the practical considerations of detaining seized vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. WB-09-1482 which has been seized in connection with Syamsunderpur P.S. Case No. 07 of 2021 lodged for commission of alleged offence under section 428, 429, 34 of the IPC and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and section 12(1)(2)(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 whereby and the application for release in connection with G.R. Case No. 181/2021 has been rejected vide order dated 7.2.2022 by SDJM, Ghatshila, pending in the court of SDJM, Ghatshila.

3. That the present case was lodged on the basis of self statement of Kajal Kumar Dubey, Incharge Shyamsundarpur Police Station (Respondent no. 2 herein) in which he has alleged that on 9.3.21 at about 11 Pm he got secret information that through Tata Ghatshila Road, 5/6 trucks loaded with illegal animals (Bovine) are moving towards Bengal. As such a team was prepared after information to the competent authority and raid was conducted. Six vehicles bearing registration No. WB-09-1482, WB-11D-2683, WB-23B-7111, WB-23B-6528, WB-23C-1836 and WB-11C-2430 stopped and after search it has been found that the same were loaded with bovine animals. One Rashid Alam and Jitendra Yadav were apprehended, rest fled away from the place of occurrence. They confessed before the authority that they are moving from Bihar to Bengal with the animals. It has been confessed by the apprehended accused persons that they were moving with the animals and no satisfactory documents were given. Accordingly animals were seized and the case has been instituted.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of confiscation under Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He submits that only provision is under Section 12(3) of the Act whereby it transpires that the vehicle in question can be forfeited to State Government. He submits that in view of Section 12(3) that will happen after once the trial comes to the conclusion of conviction of charged accused. He further submits that vehicles in questions are commercial and if it will be allowed to languish in the premise of Police Station, it will destroy. In terms of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. also, the case of the petitioner is fortified. To buttress his argument, he relied the case of Mirza Dildar Beg and Others, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 55. He further relied the case of Md. Reyazuddin vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 985. He further relied on Cr. Rev. No. 1407 of 2016 in the case of Raju Prasad Keshri vs. State of Jharkhand.

5. Per contra, Mr. Krishna, learned counsel for the State submits that the vehicles in question were seized under Sections 4(A) and 4(B) and Sections 12(i) and 12(ii) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected in view of the order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2503 of 2013 decided on 22.01.2018 in the case of Nawab Sher Khan vs. State of Jharkhand. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 733 that High Court could not have directed the release of such property in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. On perusal of provision of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, it is apparent that there is no provision of confiscation of vehicle or goods as provided under some Acts i.e. Essential Commodities Act and Forest Act. The aforesaid Acts prescribe forfeiture of vehicle particularly under Section 12(3) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005 which reads as under:

“Whenever a vehicle is found to have been us