IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35133 of 2023

HASIM KHAN

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi - PL for respondent/State.

ORDER used for illegally transporting 58 heads of bulls/bullocks and calves, which were cruelly and forcibly packed by fixing wooden planks in a double-

The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 482 read

with Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.37/2023 arising out of the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Betul in Crime No.302/2023 registered at Police Station Gang Betul, District Betul whereby the Courts below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 457 of Cr.P.C.

for custody of his vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09-HH-4995.

2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is the registered owner of

the truck bearing registration No. MP-09-HH-4995. The police registered Crime No. 302/2023 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, and under Section 11(1)(g) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, on the allegation that the said truck was being

chambered body of the vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized vehicle has been lying in an open place of the police station for the last about two months and, if not released, is likely to suffer substantial damage, particularly during the rainy season. It is further contended that the learned courts below have committed a grave error in dismissing the application for release of the vehicle on supurdginama, as the powers of the criminal court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not barred merely because confiscation proceedings are pending before the Collector under the relevant Act. Learned counsel further submits that the seized vehicle is the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family, and therefore, continued seizure of the vehicle would cause undue hardship to them.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the orders passed by the Courts below and prays for its rejection.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Upon perusal of the case diary and other documents available on record, it is evident that earlier also Crime No. 184/2023 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and under Sections 5 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, involving the same vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-HH-4995. Vide order dated 01.05.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul had released the said vehicle on supurdginama subject to certain terms and conditions.

7. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner again used the same vehicle for commission of a similar offence, resulting in registration of the present Crime No. 302/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and under Section 11(1)(g) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual violator and has misused the liberty earlier granted to him by the Court. This fact also reflects from the case diary that the animals were packed in offending truck with such cruelty that 6-7 cows and calves have died during transportation

8. Once the vehicle released on supurdginama has again been found to be involved in the commission of an identical offence, the petitioner cannot claim release of the vehicle as a matter of right. Repeated involvement of the vehicle in such offences de