2026:CGHC:7791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3628 of 2025

1 - Shivendra Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav, Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 2 Kh, Banaras Road, Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nandghat, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

12/02/2026

1. The petitioner has been preferred this instant petition under Section 528 of BNS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 61/2025 and affirming order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Bemetara, District - Bemetara, C.G. in Crime No. 192/2025, registered at police station – Nandghat, Bemetara, District -Bemetara whereby Supurdnama application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Digitally signed by HEERAHEERA LAL LAL SAHU Date:

SAHU 2026.02.13 +0530

2. As per the prosecution case, 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 am, 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 the vehicle was also seized and Crime No. 192/2025 was registered under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 130(1)/181, 130(3)/177, 66/192(a) of Motor Vehicle Act against the accused persons namely, Manoj Kumar Yadav and Vivek Yadav. It is further alleged that the cattle were being transported in contravention of the provisions of the Act of

2004.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama. He next submits that the petitioner had given the vehicle to accused/driver Manoj Kumar Yadav. He had no idea that the vehicle was being used to take cattle to the slaughterhouse. He has not even been prosecuted. He has not received any notice regarding the confiscation of the vehicle till now. The seized cattle has already been released on interim custody (supurdnama) by coordinate bench in CRMP No. 3615/2025 on 02.02.2026. The seized vehicle is machinery property and due to its lying idle in an open place, its machinery parts are being deteriorated day to day, the vehicle has been seized on 20.10.2025, i.e. about 4 months passed since the vehicle has been seized, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on interim custody. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Rampyare Sahu vs. State of C.G., passed in CRMP No.

99/2016 on 11.05.2016.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order, submitting that there are no valid documents about the transport of the said cattle, and there are also no documents with regard to the purchase or sale of the cattle.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

6. The Act of 2004 has been enacted in the interest of the general public and to maintain communal harmony and peace, for prohibition of slaughter of agricultural cattle. Section 6 of the Act of 2004 provides prohibition on transport of agricultural cattle for slaughter. At this stage, it would be appr