[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mata Indrayani Gaushala Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 26 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8472
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 2025
1] Mata Indrayani Gaushala
Bramhapuri Fata,
Bramhangaon,
Taluka & Dist. Parbhani
Through Its Authorized Person - Datta Raghunath Pahare
Age : 46 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Village Mandhani
Taluka Jinutur, District : Parbhani ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State Of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Nanalpeth
Parbhani, Taluka & District : Parbhani
2] Shaikh Yunus Shaikh Chand
Age : 54 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pedgaon, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani ... Respondents
...
• Mr. Shrimant Mundhe, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State
• Mr. Saeed S. Shaikh, a/w Mr. Sidhesh V. Jadhwar, Advocates for
Respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
RESERVED ON : 11.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, thereby
praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
31.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2,
Parbhani in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2025 and further praying for
confirming the order passed below Exh. 1 by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 149
of 2024.
2. Case of the prosecution as is disclosed from the copy of the FIR
shows that informant who is Assistant Police Inspector of Nanalpeth
Police Station, Parbhani received secret information on 04/04/2024
that one Eicher Tempo filled with cattle was proceeding from Jintur
road. He informed this fact to his superior and thereafter, he along
with other police persons went to Visawa Fata by private vehicle to
conduct raid. At about 04.15 p.m. they saw that the tempo filled with
cattle was proceeding. They gave signal by the hand for stopping the
Tempo. They inspected the Tempo and found 9 cattle (8 bullocks and
1 calf). When the police enquired with the driver of the tempo as to
whether he possessed a valid permit or licence to transport the cattle,
the driver replied that the cattle belonged to his brother, namely
Shaikh Usman Shaikh Yunus, who also arrived at the spot on a
motorcycle. However, neither the driver nor the said owner produced
any licence or document authorising the purchase or sale of the
cattle. Consequently, the police suspected that the cattle were being
transported for the purpose of slaughter. On the complaint lodged by
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
the informant, a crime bearing No. 173/2024 came to be registered
with Nanalpeth Police Station against the driver and the person
claiming to be the owner of the cattle for the offences punishable
under Sections 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960; Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976 (as amended in 1995); Sections 3, 181, 5, 180
and 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and Section 119 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
3. Respondent No. 2 herein has filed an application for release of
the vehicle and nine cattle seized in the aforesaid offences. The
petitioner also filed an application for intervention below exhibit - 13
in the said Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2024. The
application for release of the vehicle and nine cattle filed by
respondent No. 2 was rejected and the intervention application filed
below exhibit 13 by present petitioner was allowed vide order dated
02.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court
No. 3) Parbhani.
4. Respondent No. 2 herein has filed first Criminal Revision
Application No. 30 of 2024, against the order dated 02.05.2024,
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 3)
Parbhani, which was also decided by learned Additional Sessions
Judge - 2, Parbhani vide order dated 31.05.2024, by partly allowing
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
the application for release of the vehicle in favour of respondent No.
2 herein and rejecting the application insofar as the release of nine
cattle is concerned. Thus, the interim custody of the cattle as granted
by the learned JMFC to the petitioner Gaushala was confirmed.
5. The charge-sheet came to be filed in the present crime on
06.06.2024, which came to be registered as S.C.C. No. 1380 of 2024.
Respondent No. 2 herein has thereafter filed an application for
release of the cattle. The said application below Exhibit - 04 in S.C.C.
No. 1380 of 2024 came to be rejected vide order dated 03.03.2025,
by the learned JMFC, (Court No. 4) Parbhani. Respondent No. 2
herein has thereafter filed another Revision Application before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani against the order dated
03.03.2025. The learned Additional Sessions Judge -3, Parbhani vide
order dated 31.05.2025 has allowed the second Revision Application
filed by Respondent No. 2 herein in his favour. The petitioner has
thus filed the present Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order
dated 31.05.2025, handing over the custody of the cattle to
respondent No. 2 herein.
6. This Court, vide order dated 06.06.2025, has granted stay to
the impugned order dated 31.05.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned
Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that respondent
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
No. 2 had not committed cruelty to the said animals hence entitled
for custody of the cattle. The allegation in the FIR itself shows cruelty
committed by the applicant. Learned Sessions Judge has not
considered the relevant Rule 3(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules,
2017, wherein the Magistrate may direct the animal to be handed
over to the 'Panjarapole' or to animal welfare association or Gaushala
during the pendency of the litigation. The learned Sessions Judge has
further failed to consider the relevant rule 5(4), 5(5) of Prevention of
Cruelty to the Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property
Animals) Rules, 2017, wherein it is held that when the vehicle has
been involved in the offence, the Magistrate shall direct that the
vehicle be held as security and the vehicle owner, consignor and
other persons involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost
of transport, treatment and care of animals.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
earlier order rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner dated
31.05.2024 has attained finality and as such the order passed by the
learned JMFC dated 02.05.2024, has become final. Thus, respondent
No. 2 herein could not have filed another application for release of
the cattle in his favour, which is exhibit - 04 rejected by learned
JMFC on 03.03.2025. Consequentially, the petitioner could not have
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
filed any such revision after the earlier revision was already rejected
vide order dated 31.05.2024. The impugned order dated 31.05.2025,
passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2025 is therefore
liable to be set aside on this ground also.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon clauses 3, 4 and
5 of the said rules, which provides for custody of animal pending
litigation, cost of care and keeping animals pending litigation or
execution of bonds in favour of the persons to whom the custody is
handed over. The Court's below have earlier rightly handed over the
possession of the animals which were taken for slaughtering by
respondent No. 2 herein and his family members. Relying upon the
judgment in the case of Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Gaushala Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others; Criminal Appeal No. 1719 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 412 of 2020). The learned counsel for
the appellant submits that when the Gaushala has shown his
willingness to accept the interim custody of the cattle and it has
prima facie appeared that respondent No. 2 were carrying the cattle
in cruel condition and also without the valid permit, the learned
JMFC Court Parbhani vide its order dated 02.05.2024 has rightly
concluded that the cattle should be shifted in the custody of the
appellants, instead of respondent No. 2. The order dated 31.05.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani directing
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
the custody to the respondent No. 2 is therefore found to be in
violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation
Act and is liable to be quashed and set aside while restoring to the
order dated 02.05.2024 of the learned JMFC Parbhani.
10. As against this, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits
that the applicant/respondent No. 2 being the owner of the said
cattle had produced a receipt showing the ownership of the said
cattle and hence was entitled to be granted the custody of the cattle.
Respondent No. 2 had produced on record 7/12 extract to show that
respondent No. 2 is an agriculturist and that respondent No. 2
requires the said cattle for agriculture purpose. Respondent No. 2 is
not having any criminal antecedents and offences under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and as per the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole
Deudar and another Vs. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others; AIR 1998
SC 2769, the applicant was rightly handed over the custody of the
cattle, by setting aside the order passed by the learned JMFC. The
Sections involved in the present crime against the applicant and his
sons are Section 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960, the same is punishable with fine and it is only
Section 5 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, which is
punishable with five years under Section 9. The allegations in the FIR
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
would itself show that the applicant's son was transporting the said
cattle and it is only upon suspicion that the said cattle was being
taken for slaughtering, that the offence is registered. The cattle for
which the applicant has paid huge amounts for purchasing through
the open market, is handed over to the petitioner, since 22 months
i.e. from 04.04.2024. The police has already reported that two of
such cattle was ill and one of such cattle is already dead, which is
noted by the learned Courts below. Thus, the petitioner who was
granted the custody with a purpose of taking care of the cattle, is
rather derelict in his duty to take care of the cattle and has himself
committed cruelty by not taking proper care of the custody after the
custody was handed over to him.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand
submits that taking into consideration the various factors involved in
the present case, and also the fact that one of the cattle has died
during the custody of over 22 months with the petitioner Gaushala,
all the cattle which were purchased legally by respondent No. 2
herein was rightly handed over to the petitioner by respondent No. 2
by the impugned order. The impugned order is therefore just and
proper and liable to be maintained.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the
petitioner is found to be renting the animals in the village and
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
earning money out of the cattle belonging to the present respondent
No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit of the villagers who has
stated about the petitioner not being present in the cattle shed and
the cattle were also not present in the cattle shed. Upon enquiry it
was found that the petitioner has used the said cattle for giving it on
rent to the villagers for conducting their agricultural works and has
earned money out of it. The affidavit of one Haris Khan and Baliram
Shinde is annexed with the photographs. The police report submitted
to the Magistrate also informs about the petitioner not being present
in the cattle shed at the time of inspection of the cattle. The police
report is also annexed along with the affidavit filed by respondent
No. 2 also confirms the said fact about the petitioner utilizing the
said cattle. The police report dated 09.06.2025 submitted to the
Magistrate speaks of the visit of the Police Officers to the Gaushala,
Bramhapuri Phata, Bramhangaon, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani dated
05.06.2025, upon visit, it was informed that the petitioner has
transferred the said Gaushala to village Mandhani Taluka Jintur, Dist.
Parbhani. The police officers therefore visited the village Mandhani
Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani on 06.06.2025 and made a search for
the petitioner - Datta Ragunath Pahare, however, he was not found.
The cattle was also not found in the cattle shed at village Mandhani.
The notice of execution of order dated 31.05.2025 was therefore
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
pasted on a conspicuous place in Gaushala. The petitioner has
thereafter sent a reply on whatsapp to the police authority about stay
order passed by this Court in the present writ petition. The perusal of
the affidavit of Baliram Shinde a villager would show that when they
had gone in the village to find out the cattle, the cattle was not found
in the cattle shed. The said cattle was given on rent to one Anandrao
Kurde and Karbhari Shinde. Upon enquiry, these two people have
informed that the cattle belonging to respondent No. 2 was taken on
rent by the villagers from Mata Indrayani Gaushala run by the
petitioner - Datta Ragunath Pahare. Thus, the respondent No. 2
submits that taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner,
the petitioner is not entitled for the custody of the cattle, the cattle is
in custody of petitioner from last 22 months, and one bovine has
already expired while in custody of the petitioner and there is every
likelihood that the other cattle may also meet the same fate. Hence,
respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the cattle is ready to take care
of the cattle was rightly handed over the cattle's custody by the
Revisional Court during the pendency of the trial.
13. Learned APP submits that the application filed by the applicant
for release of the cattle had already been rejected by the learned
JMFC, Parbhani, vide order dated 02.05.2024. Being aggrieved
thereby, the applicant had preferred Criminal Revision Application
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
No. 30/2024 before the learned Sessions Court. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by order dated 31.05.2024,
dismissed the said revision. It is further submitted that despite
dismissal of the earlier revision application, a subsequent application
(Exhibit-4) came to be filed before the learned Trial Court seeking
similar relief. According to the learned APP, such successive
application was not maintainable in view of the bar contained under
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the earlier order
had already attained finality. It is contended that the subsequent
Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2025 filed by Respondent
No. 2 herein was also not maintainable, inasmuch as the earlier
proceedings between the parties had already attained finality and the
said orders were never challenged before the High Court. Therefore,
according to the learned APP, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
ought not to have entertained the revision and passed the impugned
order dated 31.05.2025 in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of
2025, and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
14. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 31.05.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in
Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2025. I have also perused the
order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Parbhani. Further, I have gone through the earlier order
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
dated 31.05.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of
2024, whereby the application for release of cattle and vehicle was
partly allowed and Respondent No. 2 herein was granted custody of
the vehicle, whereas the prayer for custody of the animals came to be
rejected. I have also perused the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by
the learned JMFC, Parbhani Court No. 3, in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 149 of 2024, whereby the application for release of
the vehicle and animals was initially rejected.
15. Insofar as filing of the Second Revision taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State is
concerned, it could be seen from the record that the first application
being MCA No. 149 of 2024 is filed by respondent No. 2 under
Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., while the investigation was still going on
and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed. It further appears from the
record that the second application for release of the cattle was filed
by respondent No. 2 under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., when the
property is produced before any Criminal Court during any enquiry
or trial. Thus, the two stages of filing of the applications are entirely
different and as such the objection taken by the petitioner as well as
the learned APP pertaining to the second application being filed by
respondent No. 2 herein, does not deserve any interference, is
misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
16. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 would
indicate that Respondent No. 2 had produced photo copies of the
original purchase receipts of total nine cattle along with Exhibit-15,
wherein his name is reflected as purchaser. He had also produced
7/12 extracts of Gat No. 12 dated 13.02.2017, wherein his name
appears in the column of "Bhogwatdar" along with other persons.
Further, 7/12 extract of Gat No. 189 was also placed on record,
wherein the name of his mother - Zaitunbi Shaikh Chand - appears
as one of the Bhogwatdars. An affidavit at Exhibit-12 was also filed
stating that after sale of his property, he is using agricultural field of
his brother Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Chand in Gat Nos. 12, 189, 190 and
204 for agricultural purposes and for maintaining the cattle. The
Revisional Court has taken into consideration that no third person
had come forward to claim custody of the seized cattle and that the
charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial is likely to take time
for conclusion. On that basis, relying upon the ratio laid down in the
cited judgments, the Revisional Court concluded that interim custody
of the remaining eight cattle ought to be granted to the owner and
accordingly allowed the Revision Application.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar v.
Chakram Moraji Nat; AIR 1998 SC 2769 has laid down guidelines to
be considered while determining interim custody of animals seized
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The relevant
considerations include (i) the nature and gravity of the offence
alleged against the owner, (ii) whether it is the first offence alleged
or whether he has been found guilty earlier, (iii) if it is a first
prosecution, the owner would ordinarily have a better claim for
custody, (iv) the condition in which the animals were found at the
time of inspection and seizure, and (v) the possibility of the animals
being subjected to cruelty again. It has further been clarified that
neither the Pinjrapole nor the Gaushala has any preferential right
over the owner when the owner seeks custody.
18. The perusal of the provisions and Rules framed under the Act,
namely the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance
of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, particularly Rules 3 to 5,
confer discretion upon the Magistrate to entrust interim custody to a
Gaushala, Panjarapole or other recognized institution. However, such
entrustment is not mandatory and the discretion is to be exercised
keeping in view the welfare and protection of the animals as the
paramount consideration.
19. Recently, in Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of
Maharashtra, (Supra) discussing the judgment in Manager, Pinjrapole
Deudar v. Chakram Moraji Nat (Supra), interpreting Section 35(2) of
the P.C.A. Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that though
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
the Magistrate has discretion to hand over interim custody of seized
animals to a Panjarapole or Gaushala, the Court is not bound to do so
in every case and such discretion must be exercised judiciously on the
facts of each case.
20. In the present case, the Revisional Court has considered the
ownership documents produced by Respondent No. 2, his agricultural
background, the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the
offences under Section 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are punishable with fine for first
offence. The allegation under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976 is based on suspicion of transportation for
slaughter, which is yet to be established during trial.
21. At the same time, the material placed on record indicates that
the cattle remained in the custody of the petitioner-Gaushala for a
period of about twenty-two months. It has also come on record that
one bovine expired during such custody. Police inspection reports and
affidavits relied upon by Respondent No. 2 indicate that at the time
of inspection, the petitioner was not found present at the cattle shed
and the cattle were allegedly not available there. There are also
allegations that the cattle were given on rent for agricultural
purposes. Though this Court is not adjudicating upon the truthfulness
of these allegations in the present proceedings, the same were
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
relevant considerations before the Revisional Court while exercising
discretion.
22. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, does not act as an appellate
Court to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the
order impugned suffers from perversity, illegality or material
irregularity. Upon careful scrutiny, it cannot be said that the
discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is
arbitrary or contrary to the settled legal principles governing interim
custody of seized animals.
23. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned order dated 31.05.2025. Hence, the following
order is passed :-
ORDER
A) The Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed.
B) The interim order dated 06.06.2025 stands vacated.
C) The petitioner shall hand over custody of the cattle to
Respondent No. 2 within a period of fifteen (15) days from
today through the concerned Police Station.
D) The concerned Police Officer shall remain present at the time
of handing over and shall prepare a detailed panchnama
recording the condition of the cattle.
CRI WP NO. 772 OF 2025
E) Respondent No. 2 shall ensure proper care and maintenance of
the cattle and shall produce the same before the Trial Court as
and when directed.
24. Needless to mention that the observations made herein are
prima facie in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court while
deciding the case on its own merits.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN )
JUDGE
25. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the
petitioner requested that the interim relief be continued for a period
of four weeks. Since the learned Revisional Court had directed
handing over custody of the cattle to respondent No. 2 within a
period of 15 days, and as there was a stay operating vide order dated
06.06.2025 passed by this Court, and further considering that one
cattle has already died while in the custody of the petitioner, the
request to continue the interim relief stands rejected.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN )
JUDGE
