Bombay High Court
Piraji S/O Manohar Waghmare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
(1) Cri. W.P. No. 1257 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1257 of 2016
District : Beed
Piraji s/o. Manohar Waghmare,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
Business,
R/o. Sathe Nagar,
Parali-Vaijnath,
Taluka Parali-Vaijnath,
District Beed. ig .. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Parali (City),
Taluka Parali-Vaijnath,
District Beed. .. Respondent.
............
Mr. Shrikrashna B. Solanke, Advocate, for
the petitioner (Absent).
Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
the respondent.
............
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER 2016
(2) Cri. W.P. No. 1257 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:
None for the petitioner.
Examined the petition and its annexures and heard
Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,
for the respondent - State of Maharashtra.
02. Rule made returnable forthwith.
03. The petitioner has challenged the order
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 20th
August, 2016, dismissing Criminal Revision
Application filed by the petitioner and maintaining
the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 05th
August, 2016, by which Misc. Criminal Application No.
361/2016, filed by the present petitioner, under
Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
was rejected.
04. Police seized about 34 animals and
registered Crime No. 251/2016 against the petitioner
and Balasaheb s/o. Kishan Kadam, for offences
punishable under Section 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and under Sections 5A
and 5B of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,
1976. The petitioner claimed that 10 animals out of
34 animals which were seized by the Police, belong to
him and he filed application under Section 457 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release of
(3) Cri. W.P. No. 1257 of 2016
the animals. The petitioner produced verified copies
of purchase receipts to support his claim.
05. The learned Magistrate rejected the
application by order passed on 05th August 2016 and
directed that the seized animals be handed over to
the nearest Godhan or Goshala or any other Animal
Welfare Organization, till the trial is completed.
The petitioner filed Revision Application before
Sessions Court which is dismissed by the impugned
order.
06.
After considering the averments in the FIR,
and the undisputed fact that 10 animals claimed by
the petitioner belong to the petitioner, in my view,
the application filed by the petitioner under Section
457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should
have been allowed by the learned Magistrate.
07. Hence, the following order :-
(a) The impugned orders are set aside.
(b) The respondent is directed to release 10 animals
claimed by the petitioner and to give their custody
to the petitioner. The petitioner shall furnish
indemnity bond for Rs. 2,00,000/- to the satisfaction
of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), and also file an
undertaking that he will not sell the animals
(4) Cri. W.P. No. 1257 of 2016
without seeking permission from the learned
Magistrate.
(c) The learned Magistrate shall complete the trial
within 04 months.
(d) Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.
( Z.A. HAQ )
JUDGE
ig ..........
puranik / CRIWP1257.16
