Jerat Shekh vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 3 February, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                CRLREV No.97 of 2026

In the matter of an application under Sections 438 and
442 of BNSS read with Section 503 thereof.

                         ------------------

Jerat Shekh                ....                           Petitioner
                         -versus-

State of Odisha               ....              Opposite Parties


For Petitioners               :        Mr. J. Panda,        Advocate



For Opposite Party            :        Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

                  CORAM:
                  JUSTICE V. NARASINGH


  DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 03.02.2026



V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar in Misc. Case No. 131 of 2025 arising out of Dhamnagar P.S. Case No. 409 of

2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 890 of 2025, the present CRLREV has been filed.

3. While considering the prayer of the Petitioner for release of the vehicle under erstwhile Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. presently Section 5031 of BNSS, the learned Court in seisin while allowing the release of the vehicle directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.5,49,400/- taking into account the expenses incurred by the Goshala for cow and calf.

4. The Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 281/303(2)/325/3(5) BNS, r/w section 11(A) (D) (E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960 r/w section 7 of Prevention of cow slaughter Act.

5. The allegation of the prosecution was that the animals in question were being taken in the vehicle TATA LPT 4830 BSVI 10X2 (sixteen wheeler Truck) bearing Regd. No. OD-04V-2196 of which the Petitioner is stated to be the owner.

503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.--(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Sanhita, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. Corresponding Law: S. 457 of Act 2 of 1974.

6. Seeking release of the said vehicle the Petitioner moved the learned J.M.F.C..

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that imposition of such condition is harsh and is against the spirit of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat2. Hence, the matter merits of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposes such prayer specially referring to Section 11(1)3, 11(1)(a)(d)3 of Prevention of

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283

11. Treating animals cruelly.--(1) If any person--

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or

(b) employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease, infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed; or

(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to [any animal] or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by any animal; or

(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or

(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or

(h) being the owner of 4 [any animal], fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or

(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or

(k) offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or

Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to "the PCA Act") and submits that the Petitioner cannot be absolved from paying for the maintenance of the animals carried illegally. It is apt to note that 32 numbers of cattle and 2 numbers of calves of different age which were being carried in the said vehicle were given in zima to Gou Gyan Foundation, Maitapur on 26.10.2025.

9. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State but at the same time is persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the direction to deposit Rs.5,49,400/- at one go in the given facts of the present case would be harsh and in fact would amount to negating the order of release.

(l) mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or

(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment--

(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or

(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or

(n) organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or

(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting;

he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.

In this context attention of this Court is also drawn to the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in CRLREV No.491 of 2025 wherein, in a case akin to the case at hand, this Court directed release on initial deposit and the balance being paid in installments.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that because of financial constraints, the Petitioner is not in a position to deposit the entire amount at one go.

11. On considering the rival submission and keeping in view the Section 35(4)4 of the PCA Act read with Rule 4(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 20175 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟), this Court is persuaded to direct that interest of justice would be sub-served if the Petitioner is directed to

35. Treatment and care of animals.-- (1) to (3). xxx xxx xxx (4) The cost of transporting the animal to an infirmary or pinjrapole, and of its maintenance and treatment in an infirmary, shall be payable by the owner of the animal in accordance with a scale of rates to be prescribed by the district magistrate, or, in presidency-towns, by the commissioner of police:

Provided that when the magistrate so orders on account of the poverty of the owner of the animal, no charge shall be payable for the treatment of the animal.

(5) to (7). xxx xxx xxx

4. Cost of care and keeping of animal pending litigation.- (1) The State Board shall within three months from the date of commencement of these rules and thereafter on the 1st day of April every year, specify the cost of transport, maintenance and treatment per day for every species of animal that is commonly seized in the State.

(2) The magistrate shall use the rates specified by the State Board as the minimum specified rates for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized animals under sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act.

(3) In case the animal under consideration is not on the rate sheet specified by the State Board, the magistrate shall fix the cost of transport, treatment and maintenance of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinary officer.

make upfront payment of Rs.1,49,400/-. On payment of Rs.1,49,400/-, the vehicle in question shall be released subject to other conditions as imposed, which are not varied and it is further directed that the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid in eight equal monthly installments of Rs.50,000/- each and the first of which shall fall due on 07.04.2026 and shall end in November, 2026. The amount so deposited shall be released in favour of the authorized person of Gou Gyan Foundation, Maitipur on due verification.

12. It is made clear that in the event there is any default of payment of any of the installments, it shall be open for the learned Court in seisin to proceed in accordance with law against the Petitioner.

13. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of.

(V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 3rd February, 2026/Ayesha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack