Gujarat High Court
Valvi Ravimehtabhai Raghuvirbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/658/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR
MUDDAMAL) NO. 658 of 2025
=================================================
VALVI RAVIMEHTABHAI RAGHUVIRBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service for the respondent - State. Considering
the issue involved in the matter, the same is taken up for final
disposal today.
2. This application under Section 438 r/w. 442 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is filed against the
judgment and order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 53 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Narmada
at Rajpipala, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/658/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
application of the present applicant seeking release of muddamal
being Bolero Pick-up F 8 (Make - Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.)
bearing registration No. GJ-06-AT-2640, Chassis No.
MA1ZN2GHKD1A18992, Engine No. GHD1A14854, seized in
connection with the FIR being No. 11823021240904, registered with
Sagbara Police Station, District: Narmada for the offences under the
Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
3. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.
3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant who is an agriculturist, is the owner of the vehicle in
question and the said vehicle is of daily use of the applicant. The
learned advocate for the applicant submits the copy of 7/12 Extract,
which is taken on record. He submitted that substantial investigation
is over now and release of vehicle would not prejudice the
prosecution in any manner. It is further submitted that vehicle is
lying at in an open space, unutilized and by passage of time, its value
would be diminished. Accordingly, it is urged that muddamal
vehicle be released on any suitable conditions.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent - State has vehemently argued that the muddamal vehicle
may not be released in view of nature and gravity of offence. He
submits that if the muddamal vehicle is released, there are all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/658/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
chances of committing the same offence in future. Therefore, he
urged to reject the application.
5. Having heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and
perusing the judgment and order impugned herein, it appears that the
learned Sessions Judge, after referring to the provisions of the
Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, more particularly, Sub-section (4)
of Section 6(A) whereby, it is provided that the vehicle or any
conveyance so seized under Sub-section (3) shall stand forfeited to
Government in the manner as may be prescribed, observed that the
muddamal vehicle cannot be handed over to the applicant. However,
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted the report of
the In-charge Police Inspector, Sagbara Police Station, District:
Narmada, wherein, it is observed that steps for confiscation of the
vehicle in question are not under active consideration.
5.1 Further, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted
that the applicant is an agriculturist and to substantiate the said fact
7/12 Extract is also produced on record. Further, the applicant
assures to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.
5.2 The Court has also taken into consideration the observations of
the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/658/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
6. Resultantly, the application is allowed in terms of Paragraph
7(B) of the application memo, subject to the conditions that may be
imposed by the trial Court concerned. Further, the applicant shall
file an undertaking before the trial Court concerned that he shall not
transfer or alienate the vehicle in question any manner whatsoever
and the same shall be subject to the outcome of the trial. Rule is
made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/DB-45tss251125
