Gujarat High Court
Mohsin Faruk Bhochu vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5459/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 5459 of 2025
==========================================================
MOHSIN FARUK BHOCHU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
NABILKHAN F YUSUFZAI(8994) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
[1.0] The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e TATA 407 Tempo bearing RTO registration No.GJ-17-UU-3114.
[2.0] The case of the prosecution is that while the police personnel were on patrolling, they received a secret information of the other vehicle in question carrying animals and when police authorities intercepted the same, on carrying out the search of the said vehicle, it was found that vehicle was carrying animals without any pass or permit and present muddamal car was piloting the another vehicle, in which animals were transported. Therefore, an FIR being C.R. No. 11204026230554/2023 came to be registered with Kapadvanj Town Police Station, District Kheda, under the provisions of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules and Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5459/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
[3.0] Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents.
[4.0] Learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises.
[5.0] Learned APP for the respondents has objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and urged that of course, powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time, whenever the Court deems it appropriate but this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction and hence, requested to dismiss the petition. Further, the vehicle is required to be confiscated.
[6.0] It appears that in the present case, Section 6(A) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is also involved. There is no presumption that the vehicle has been used for slaughtering purposes. It further appears that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as well as this Court itself, has time and again directed the police authority to verify whether proceedings of confiscation have commenced or not. The Court also warned the Investigating Officer that non-observance of this order shall be viewed seriously. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned APP under the instructions states that no confiscation proceedings are initiated till date. Therefore, the Court has no option but to release the vehicle. Vehicle is used for piloting and not used for transportation of animals for slaughter purpose and six months are already over.
[7.0] Prima-facie, there is nothing to show that the cow progeny were being transported for the purpose of slaughter. The mere bald assertion on Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5459/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined the part of the police in that regard would not be sufficient to attract the provision of Section 6A of the Act which imposes a bar for release of the vehicle for a period of six months from the date of the seizure. Perusing the report, it appears that there is no allegation of slaughter and therefore, straightway Section 6(A) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act would not get attracted. Merely based on presumption, FIR came to be filed and vehicle has been seized. Even the said aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Even this is not a case where prescribed limit of six months is not over. Though vehicle is seized on 27.08.2023, six month time has lapsed and thereafter, no any confiscation proceedings are initiated. Under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act (Amendment) Act, 2017, more particularly Section 18 (4) The Gujarat Animal Cruelty Rules, specifically the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, vehicle seized during alleged offence, maintenance cost is required to be recovered but till date, no any proceedings are initiated and order of the lower Court is silent on the said aspect. However, till date no confiscation proceedings being initiated and vehicle remained in the police station as it is. In absence of any such material or initiation of confiscation of vehicle, it is expedient to avoid situation of vehicle getting deteriorated pending the trial and hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid peculiar fact and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002)10 SCC 283, with certain stringent conditions, present petition deserves consideration in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .
[8.0] This Court has relied on judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arvindkumar Babulal Khandelval v. State of Gujarat, reported in ABC 2015 (II0 363 GUJ wherein it is observed as under:
"8. The moot question is whether the provisions of section 6(A) clause (4) applies in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 6(A) clause (1) reads as under:
(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any animal specified in subsection (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to any another place within the State for the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5459/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so slaughtered:
Provided that a person shall be deemed to be transporting such animal for the purpose of slaughter unless contrary is proved thereto to the satisfaction of the concerned authority or officer by such person or he has obtained a permit under subsection (2) for transporting animal for bona fide agricultural or animal husbandry purpose from such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf."
A restriction under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to release the vehicle would apply only in a case where the animals are being transported for the purpose of slaughter. Herein, no such case of prosecution. Even, till date no proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle being initiated. In view of above, there is no bar to invoke the powers under Section 451 of the CrPC also.
[9.0] In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are hereby quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the vehicle in question i.e. TATA 407 Tempo bearing RTO registration No.GJ- 17-UU-3114 shall be released subject to the following terms and conditions;
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond within a period of one week from today for the production of the vehicle so released, if and when required before the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure;
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any such illegal activity of transportation of the animals;
(iii) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in any manner till the final conclusion of the trial pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate.
(iv) if in future, any confiscation / auction proceedings is initiated by the authority, in that event, the petitioner shall have to hand over / return the possession of the vehicle to the respondent authority and the petitioner shall file an undertaking to the said effect before the learned Magistrate;
(v) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle shall stand confiscated;
(vi) trial Court shall have liberty to pass an order to recover maintenance amount of animals from the owner of the vehicle.Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/5459/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined [10.0] Before release of the vehicle, concerned police authority shall take photographs / identity of the vehicle from all sides at the cost of the petitioner and shall draw necessary panchanama to that effect. Said panchanama and photographs shall be part of charge sheet papers for the purpose of trial.
[11.0] Copy of this order be send to concerned RTO, where the vehicle is registered, for necessary entry in the Register and to take notice that this Court has restrained transfer of vehicle till final disposal of the trial. Such transfer shall be subject to any order that may be passed by the learned Trial Court permitting transfer of vehicle.
[12.0] Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:35 IST 2025