2026:CGHC:5748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 10.12.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 02.02.2026 ORDER UPLOADED ON 02.02.2026 CRMP No. 3615 of 2025

1 - Bablu @ Janardan Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Sehdauli, Post- Farsad, P.S. Badhalganj, District- Gorakhpur (U.P.) Through- The Power Of Attorney Namely Bahal Singh Verma S/o Kapil Singh Aged About- 51 Years, R/o Village Oteband, Post- Bemetara, P.S. And District- Bemetara (C.G.) (As Per Correct Details/ Aadhar Card)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer-

Nandghat, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

C A V Order

This petition has been filed under Section 528 read with Section

503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Criminal Revision No. 59/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim custody (supurdnama) of the seized cattle has been rejected.

2. The petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the seized cattle. It is alleged that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant Vivek Kumar Shukla at Police Station Nandghat, it was alleged that on 20.10.2025 at about 12:50 a.m., a Tata Eicher mini truck bearing registration No. CG-15-DZ-8001 was found transporting cattle in a cruel manner. It was alleged that a total of 16 cattle were found tied with ropes, overcrowded and crammed into the vehicle/mini-truck under deplorable conditions. The said cattle were seized and Crime No. 192/2025 was registered under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 against the accused persons. It is further alleged that the cattle were being transported in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2004.

3. During investigation, the cattle were seized and kept in custody. The petitioner claimed ownership of the seized cattle and filed an application before the Trial Court for grant of interim custody under Section 503 of the BNSS. The Trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 01.11.2025. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Revisional Court, leading to the present petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the factual and legal aspects of the matter. It was argued that the petitioner had produced documentary evidence regarding purchase of cattle, including receipts issued by competent authorities and Panchayat records. It was further submitted that the seized cattle are milch cows and buffaloes, some of which are pregnant, and their prolonged detention without adequate care risks severe harm, including potential death of the animals.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere transportation of cattle does not attract Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004 unless it is proved that the cattle were being transported for the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge that they were likely to be slaughtered. It was argued that there is no allegation or material on record to show that the cattle were being transported for slaughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the charge- sheet has been filed, there is no allegation or material on record to establish that the seized cattle were being transported for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004.

6. It was argued that Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004 would attract only when cattle are tran