Bombay High Court
Samir Kayyum Qureshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 January, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:5257
:1: 10.aba-259-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2024
Samir Kayyum Qureshi .....Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
-----
Mr. Advait U. Shukla, Advocate i/b. Abdul Quadir Auti for the
Applicant.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R. No.730/2023 registered at Sadar Bazar
police station, Solapur City on 11.11.2023 under Sections 307,
353, 427, 429 of IPC, under Sections 3 & 13 of the Maharashtra
Keeping And Movement Of Cattle In Urban Areas (Control) Act,
1976, Sections 5, 9 & 11 of the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976, Sections 11(1)(f),(h),(i),(k) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 46 and 56 of the
Transportation of Animal Act and Sections 83 and 177 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
1 of 6
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 10.aba-259-24.odt
2. Heard Mr. Advait Shukla, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
3. The FIR is lodged by one Police Constable Vitthal
Kalje attached to Sadar Bazar police station. He has stated that
between the night of 10.11.2023 and 11.11.2023 he was on the
patrolling duty. At about 5.14 a.m. one Komati called him and
informed that one tempo carrying cattle was to pass through
Gurunanak Chowk. The informant and others went to the spot
and waited for the vehicle to arrive. At about 6.40 a.m., a
tempo bearing No.MH 11 M 4789 came there. The police
officers asked the driver to stop the tempo, but, the driver drove
the tempo deliberately towards the police officers. It dashed
into the police vehicle. The driver and his two associates ran
away. The police officers were knowing the driver as he was
having antecedents. The driver was the present Applicant. The
persons with him were Kiran Bansode and Babu Gejage. All the
three ran away. The police officers searched the tempo. They
found that 21 cows were huddled inside the tempo in a cruel
2 of 6
:3: 10.aba-259-24.odt
manner. The vehicle and the cattle were taken charge of and
this FIR was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
offence of Sections 307 and 353 of IPC are not attracted. The
CCTV footage from the shop across the street captured the
incident. In that incident there is nothing to show that the
driver had driven that vehicle in a negligent manner or has
caused any damage to the police vehicle. He submitted that
except the offences under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation
Act, 1976, all other offences under the Special Acts are bailable.
There is nothing to show that the cattle were being taken for
slaughtering. Mere transportation will not bring this offence
within the purview of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act.
He submitted that even as per the allegations the Applicant was
merely a driver of the vehicle. He was neither the owner of the
vehicle nor the owner of the cattle. Therefore, his custodial
interrogation is not necessary.
5. Learned APP relied on the description of the
incident given in the FIR itself.
3 of 6
:4: 10.aba-259-24.odt
6. I have considered these submissions. At this stage, it
is difficult to observe regarding commission of offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC. As far as the offence
under Section 353 of IPC is concerned, there does not appear to
be any assault committed or any application of force by the
accused on the police. As submitted by learned counsel for the
Applicant, the other offences, except the offences under the
Animal Preservation Act, are bailable. However, the offence
under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 are
required to be considered seriously in the facts of the present
case. Sections 5, 5A, 9 and 11 of said Act are important in this
case. They read as follows :
"5. Prohibition of slaughter of cows, [bulls and
bullocks]. Notwithstandings anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force or any usage
or custom to the contrary no person shall slaughter or
cause to be slaughtered or offer for slaughter any cow
[bull or bullock], in any place in the State of
Maharashtra.
5A. Prohibition on transport and export of cow, bull or
bullock for slaughter. - (1) No person shall transport
or offer for transport or cause to be transported cow,
bull or bullock from any place within the State to any
place outside the State for the purpose of its slaughter
in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with
4 of 6
:5: 10.aba-259-24.odt
the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so
slaughtered.
(2) No person shall export or cause to be
exported outside the State of Maharashtra cow, bull or
bullock for the purpose of slaughter either directly or
through his agent or servant or any other person acting
on his behalf, in contravention of the provisions of this
Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to
be slaughtered.
xxxxx
xxxxx
9. Penalty for contravention of sections 5, 5A or 5B.-
Whoever contravenes the provisions of sections 5, 5A
or 5B shall, on conviction, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five
years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees, or with both:
Provided that except for special and
adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment of the
court such imprisonment shall not be of less than six
months and such fine shall not be less than one
thousand rupees.
xxxxx
xxxxx
11. Abetments and attempts.- Whoever abets any
offence punishable under this Act or attempts to
commit any such offence shall be deemed to have
committed that offence and shall, on conviction, be
punished with the punishement provided for such
offence under section 9 [or section 9A]"
5 of 6
:6: 10.aba-259-24.odt
7. Section 10 makes all the offences under the said Act
cognizable and non-bailable. Therefore, even an attempt to
commit any offence under the Act under Section 11 is a non-
bailable offence. The Applicant did not have any explanation
for carrying such cattle in such cruel manner. There were no
documents. There was nothing to show for what purpose these
animals were being transported. Therefore, at this stage the
investigating agency is not wrong in applying Sections 5, 9 & 11
of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.
8. Considering all these aspects, the Applicant does not
deserve to be protected under section 438 of Cr.P.C. His
custodial interrogation is necessary to find out the modus
operandi and the manner of commission of offence as well as
to find out his other associates involved in the offence. No case
for protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is made out. The
Application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
6 of 6
