Orissa High Court
Butu Mohanty vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 18 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.781 of 2025
Butu Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Swain, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
18.11.2025 I.A. No.1129 of 2025 Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant petition is filed for orders.
3. Recorded the submission of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. For the reason stated therein, I.A. is allowed dispensing with filing of certified copy of the order at Annexure-2 for the time being.
5. I.A. stands disposed of.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 1 of 6 CRLREV No.781 of 2025
02. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decision dated 9th December, 2024 at Annexure-3 passed in Criminal Revision No.08 of 2024 by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Athagarh confirming the order dated 4th September, 2024 at Annexure-2 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.15 of 2024 of the learned J.M.F.C., Badamba, whereby, an application under Section 503 BNSS seeking interim release and custody of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05-BM-7118 in his favour has been allowed but subject to a deposit towards cost etc. and other conditions.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question allegedly seized in connection with the case pending in the file of learned court below in connection with G.R. Case No.225 of 2024 corresponding to Badamba P.S. Case No.156 of 2024 for commission of offence under Section 325/303(2)/317(2)/3(5) of BNS read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having no other source of income and hence, the seizure vehicle should have been released in his favour without imposing any such condition directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.1,23,000/-payable to Page 2 of 6 the shelter home towards expenditure, cost etc. vis-à-vis maintenance of the cattle left in their zima. The further submission is that the valuation of the vehicle in question would hardly cost of Rs.2.00 lac and hence, any such payment of cost by the petitioner is hugely disproportionate and hence, the said condition should be dispensed with directing its release in his favour with the fulfillment of other conditions and to that extent, the impugned order dated 4th September, 2024 at Annexure-2 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.15 of 2024 is required to be modified.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State submits that the expenditure already incurred and to be borne by the Jiba Bikash Parishad is required to be deposited by the petitioner in view of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and hence, it has been so directed by the learned court below for the petitioner to make deposit in terms thereof. In support of such contention, Mr. Swain, learned AGA cited a decision of this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021(II) OLR 1016, wherein, it has been held that the provisions of the PCA Act and Rules framed thereunder are mandatorily to be followed at the time while considering interim release of the vehicles involved in illicitly transporting the cattle.
5. In fact, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and sub-rule (2) thereof, the Magistrate shall consider the rate specified by the Page 3 of 6 Animal Welfare Board or the District Magistrate as the case may be for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized animals while directing its deposit in terms of Section 35(4) of the PCA Act. The rates specified by the Animals Welfare Board of India have been reproduced by this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad (supra) and according to Mr. Swain, learned AGA, it has been duly followed while directing the petitioner to deposit the cost towards maintenance, transport, etc. in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Parishad. A calculation has been reached at by the learned court below accordingly and at last, an amount of Rs.1,23,000/- has been directed to be deposited by the petitioner to the concerned Parishad. While considering the application for release under Section 503 BNSS, the learned court below has imposed such other conditions to be complied with by the petitioner besides deposit of the cost. But, the deposit having been directed is for an amount of Rs.1,23,000/-, the predicament of the petitioner and his inability to comply such a condition as against the valuation of the vehicle in question, the Court is of the humble that in view of Rule 4 of the Rules and provisions of the PCA Act, he cannot avoid making any such payment towards maintenance and other cost in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Parishad but at the same time, to direct the petitioner to make a onetime deposit for an amount of Rs.1,23,000/- would not be appropriate. Hence, the Court is inclined to direct the learned court below to consider interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.40,000/- by the petitioner and thereafter, to consider Page 4 of 6 realization of the balance in installments. In the considered view of the Court, any such direction to pay the entire amount in lump sum without releasing the vehicle is certainly to cause immense, inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner and he should therefore be allowed to take interim custody of the same and simultaneously, to pay back and the clear outstanding balance in instalments with an initial deposit of Rs.40,000/- as such a course of action would instead serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. Such is the view of the Court also for the reason that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the local police exposed to sun and rain and it is no profitable either as its conditions is likely to deteriorate being exposed to the vagaries of the climatic conditions. In other words, it is a fit case, where, the above direction is necessary for compliance by the petitioner while receiving the interim custody of the seizure vehicle.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Badamba to allow interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05-BM-7118 in favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership and deposit of Rs.40,000/- in the name of the concerned Parishad with an undertaking regarding payment of the balance of the cost in instalments. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 4th September, 2024 in Crl. Misc. Case No.15 of 2025 as at Annexure-2 is modified to the extent as aforesaid.
Page 5 of 68. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Nov-2025 19:18:37 Page 6 of 6