The court ruled that releasing a vehicle seized for animal cruelty allegations is unwarranted while the trial is pending, emphasizing the need to uphold laws against illegal livestock transport.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, being owner of the vehicle herein, seeking the return of Muddamali i.e. Tata Tempo-(Make- Tata Motors Ltd.) bearing Registration No. MH-18-BH-8152 and Chassis No. MAT563012M7J15845 and Engine No. 33LNGD06JYX518835 which has been seized by the investigation officer in connection with FIR dated 14/01/2024, bearing C.R. No. 11219007240006 of 2024 registered with Waghai Police Station, Dang, for the offence punishable under Sections 13(3)(E) of Animal Cruelty Prohibition Act , 6(A)(1), 8(4) of Preservation of Animals Act and 125 of Motor Vesicle Act.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the prosecution are as such that the petitioner's vehicle i.e., Tata Tempo br. Reg. No. MH-18-BH-8152 is alleged to have been used in carrying twenty calves and were being transported from Mehsana, Gujarat to Ahmednagar, Maharashtra; the vehicle was intercepted and all the calves were recovered on the way. The offence was thereafter registered at Vaghai Police Station at Crime Reg. No. 11219007240006/2024 under the provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act , 1954 as amended from time to time.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi for the petitioner and Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned APP for the respondent – State.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle and that the investigation is almost concluded and hence, requirement of the vehicle is not there and in absence of the vehicle also, the investigation and the case of the prosecution is not going to be prejudiced and hence, no ground to restrict the vehicle and, therefore, the indulgence of this Court is prayed for. It is also submitted that petitioner is surviving on the vehicle for his employment and its mean for his survival, if the vehicle is not released, his family and he will be in big trouble. It is also submitted that this High Court vide order dated 05/04/2018 passed in SCRA No. 2185 of 2018 as well as order dated 05/09/2018 passed in SCRA No. 7642 of 2018 hold that as per the provision of Sec 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over the interim custody of the vehicle but the this Court released the same by exercising powers under Article 226 of constitution of India. Therefore, petitioner has no other alternative remedy to file an application for getting interim custody of vehicle except this Court. It is also submitted that the vehicle is lying in the police custody and the same is kept in the open space, unutilized and by passage of time, the value of the vehicle is being diminished. It is also submitted that in view of the backlog of the cases, the Magistrate is not able to complete the trial and hearing within some time bound schedule and if the vehicle is kept in such manner, it would be deteriorated and would render useless and assuming for a moment that even after conclusion of the trial, if it may be confiscated, then also then also it would not fetch it original value. In such situation, the petitioner humbly request this Court to handover interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner in the interest of justice. He has herein relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 (1) GLH 307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Court concerned to handover the custody of vehicle to the person entitled thereto as per the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973. It is also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Narendra reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp.) 1864 .

4.2 It is also submitted that if the petitioner is not release with the said vehicle which is his of the daily use as the petitioner is the bread and butter and creates the d