Bombay High Court
Mohammad Mudassir Abdul Bashir Qureshi vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso ... on 8 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10497
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2025
...
Mohammad Mudassir Abdul Bashir Qureshi,
Age : 30 Years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Machhli Market, Kagzipura,
Akola, Dist. Akola - 444001.
... PETITIONER
--VERSUS--
State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Ramdaspeth, Police Station Akola.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N.Qureshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.M. Lonare, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave to amend. Amendment shall be carried out
forthwith.
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 2), Akola dated
30/06/2022, and the judgment dated 18/10/2022 passed in
Criminal Revision No. 143/2022 by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Akola. By the order dated 30/06/2022, the application
filed by the petitioner for release of his vehicle was rejected by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 2), Akola. The
revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Without
entering into the issue of maintainability of the revision, the
present petition can be decided on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the case. It appears that a First Information
Report came to be registered against the petitioner for the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
offence punishable under Section 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Sections 9, 5-A, and 5-B of
the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1995.
4. The allegations are that the petitioner is the owner of
the vehicle. It is further alleged that cattle were being
transported in the said vehicle. The police intercepted the
vehicle and found that it contained nine animals, allegedly
being transported for slaughter. Accordingly, a First
Information Report was registered. The petitioner filed an
application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which came to be rejected on two grounds: firstly,
that earlier, Crime No. 461/2020 had also been registered
against the petitioner for a similar offence, and secondly, when
the same vehicle was released in connection with the earlier
offence, the petitioner had breached the conditions imposed at
the time of the release.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
He submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. If the
vehicle is not released, no purpose will be served and the
petition will incur huge losses. He places reliance on the oral
judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1177/2018, in the case of Abdul Majid Abdul Hamid Qureshi
vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 11/03/2019.
6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that
the petitioner is a habitual offender and that this is the second
offence registered against him. He further submits that the
offence is of a serious nature, involving cruelty to animals. If
the vehicle is released, there is every likelihood that it may
again be used for transportation of animals. Both the Courts
below have rightly passed the orders, and therefore, no
interference is warranted. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of
the application.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
7. I have considered the rival submissions. It appears
that the vehicle was seized on 21/05/2022, and nearly three
years have passed since then. No doubt, in the year 2020, the
same vehicle was seized in connection with another offence and
was released upon imposition of certain terms and conditions.
It is also true that the petitioner breached those conditions.
However, it cannot be ignored that it is in no one's interest for
the vehicle to remain idle and deteriorate due to prolonged
non-use. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the vehicle
bearing Registration No. MH-30-BD-2789 is required to be
released, subject to appropriate conditions. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) The vehicle, Tata Intra V20 BS-IV, bearing
Registration No. MH-30-BD-2789, Chassis No.
MAT535067KYE12170, and Engine No.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
1400DIO1EPYS77935, shall be released, and
custody shall be handed over to the present
petitioner;
(iii) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking before
the Trial Court stating that:
• He shall produce the said vehicle as and when
required during the course of the trial;
• He shall not alter or modify the structure of the said
vehicle;
• He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activity or
for committing any offence under Section 11 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960;
• He shall not sell, transfer, or create any third-party
interest in respect of the said vehicle until the
conclusion of the trial;
(iv) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
with the Court below towards the care and
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 43-Cr.WP-656-2025
maintenance of the animals seized from the
petitioner's vehicle. Upon such deposit, the vehicle
shall be released to the petitioner;
(v) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
