SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Nabi Sarwar S/o Md. Osman – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 auth
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, 20....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the forfeiture of vehicles under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005 can only occur after a trial concludes and ....
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, 20....
Release of Vehicle - Beef slaughter - Transportation of Cattle or Beef - Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or Beef contravening any provision of this Act Vehic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, regarding the forfeiture of a vehicle to ....
The Act does not provide for confiscation of the vehicle, and forfeiture can only occur after a trial concludes with a conviction. The commercial nature of the vehicle and relevant legal provisions a....
The court's decision was based on the lack of initiation of confiscation proceedings for the seized vehicle under the Rajasthan Bovine Act, 1955, and the potential damage from continued detention.
Seized vehicles must be released to owners unless confiscation proceedings are initiated; conditions include deposit of bank guarantees and ensuring no illegal use.
Prompt action under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is necessary to avoid keeping seized property at police stations for a long time, and seized vehicles should be released when ownership is not disputed.
The rightful owner of seized property should be allowed to enjoy the property, and the power under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised judiciously and promptly.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.