Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, owner of a vehicle seized in Crime No.49/2025 registered at Police Station Korchi for offences under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 9 and 11 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the condition of payment of Rs.200 per day imposed for release of the vehicle. The petitioner was not an accused in the crime. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurkheda, by order dated 02.09.2025, imposed the condition of depositing Rs.200 per day. The petitioner challenged this before the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Criminal Revision Application No.34/2025. The Revisional Court, by order dated 12.02.2025, partly allowed the revision, directing that 50% of the costs be paid immediately and the remaining 50% after three months. The petitioner contended that the condition was onerous and impossible to comply with, and that the vehicle continued to remain in police custody and deteriorate. The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 283 and Roshan Omkar Tarare v. State of Maharashtra, order dated 10.02.2023, submitting that the vehicle should be released on an undertaking. The State opposed the petition, arguing that costs were rightly imposed under Rules 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017, as the owner was jointly and severally liable for costs of transport, treatment, and care of animals. The second respondent, Dhyan Foundation, Lakhni, was served but did not appear. The High Court examined the orders of the lower courts and found that they failed to consider that the petitioner was the owner but not an accused, and that the petitioner sought release only of the vehicle, not the cattle. The Court held that the imposition of such an onerous condition would not yield any fruitful purpose. The Court quoted the Supreme Court's observation in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai that there is no use keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and that Magistrates should pass immediate orders taking bond and security. The Court further held that Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017, which was relied upon by the lower courts, pertained to execution of bond for custody of animals and did not speak of any condition to be imposed while releasing a vehicle to an owner who is not an accused. The Court also relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, which held that in scenarios where the owner is not arrayed as an accused, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari subject to furnishing a bond to produce the vehicle or pay its value if confiscated. Accordingly, the High Court found the condition of Rs.200 per day to be unsustainable and erroneous, and held that the vehicle should be released on the petitioner furnishing an appropriate undertaking as per the Supreme Court's directions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Release of Seized Vehicle - Magistrate should not keep seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and should pass immediate orders taking bond, guarantee and security - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 11; Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, Sections 9 and 11 - Vehicle was seized in Crime No.49/2025; courts below imposed condition of payment of Rs.200 per day making release impossible, while vehicle continued to deteriorate. Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai held there is no purpose in keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period; Magistrate should pass appropriate orders by taking bond and security. Held that imposition of such onerous condition would not yield any fruitful purpose and condition was unsustainable. (Paras 1, 5, 7) B) Statutory Interpretation - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017 - Interpretation of Rule 5(5) - Rule 5(5) does not apply to release of a vehicle to its owner who is not an accused; it pertains to execution of bond for custody of animals - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017, Rules 4, 5, 5(5) - Both lower courts relied on Rule 5(5) to impose payment of Rs.200 per day on the vehicle owner, misconceiving that the owner of the vehicle can be held liable to pay costs of maintenance while releasing the vehicle. The rule nowhere speaks of any condition to be imposed while releasing a vehicle to a non-accused owner. Held that reliance on Rule 5(5) was erroneous and called for interference. (Para 6) C) Release of Vehicle When Owner Not Accused - Superdari/Bond - In scenarios where the owner of the vehicle is not arrayed as an accused, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari subject to owner furnishing a bond to produce the vehicle or pay its value if confiscated - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 11; Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, Sections 9 and 11 - Applying the principles in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, where no allegation is made against the owner, interim release should be granted on bond. Petitioner, being owner and not accused, was entitled to release of the vehicle on furnishing an undertaking. Held that the vehicle should be released on appropriate undertaking in accordance with the Supreme Court's direction, quashing the monetary condition. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition of payment of Rs.200 per day imposed for release of the seized vehicle was onerous and unsustainable; whether Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017 applied to release of vehicle to a non-accused owner; whether the vehicle should be released on undertaking or bond when the owner is not an accused.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the condition of payment of Rs.200 per day was onerous and unsustainable, and that the reliance on Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules, 2017 was erroneous. The Court, relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Bishwajit Dey, held that the vehicle should be released upon the petitioner furnishing an appropriate undertaking as per the Supreme Court's directions, quashing the monetary condition.
Law Points
- Seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for a long period
- Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond
- guarantee and security for return of vehicles
- Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Animals) Rules
- 2017 does not apply to release of vehicle to an owner who is not accused
- Vehicle should normally be released on superdari when owner is not accused
- subject to furnishing bond to produce vehicle or pay value if confiscated
- Imposition of onerous condition making compliance impossible is not justified.
