Disposed¶26

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2026WP/580/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cattle transport seizure; vehicle MH-03/ES0959 released, animals sent to private Gaushala; FIR/complaint by Senior Inspector of Police, Shirgaon Parandwadi Police Station (Respondent No. 2); offence alleged under Section 11(1)(d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960; quashing of FIR refused; “unnecessary pain or sufferings” requires oral and documentary evidence at trial; writ petition disposed with liberty to avail statutory remedy; Bombay High Court; 13 February 2026; coram Shree Chandrashekhar CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy as available to him in law; the prayers for release of the animals and quashing of the FIR were not granted (the vehicle had already been released, as stated by learned counsel). ¶26

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the allegations in the FIR, the ingredients of clause (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (conveying or carrying animals in a manner subjecting them to unnecessary pain or suffering) are made out, such that the FIR/complaint against the petitioner could be quashed. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The expression “unnecessary pain or sufferings” in clause (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1960 necessarily requires leading of evidence, oral and documentary, during the trial.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

On the face of the allegations in the FIR, no finding can be recorded that the petitioner was not treating the animals with cruelty.

¶26

Key takeaways

The allegations in the FIR are not of such a nature (e.g., a civil dispute) that it can be easily inferred that no offence is made out.ratio¶26
Keeping in mind the ongoing investigation, the Court declined to express itself further on the petitioner's arguments and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy available to him in law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Criminal Writ Petition No.580 of 2026, decided 13 February 2026 (Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.). The petitioner, whose vehicle (MH-03/ES0959) and cattle were seized in connection with an FIR/complaint registered by Respondent No. 2 (Senior Inspector of Police, Shirgaon Parandwadi Police Station) and whose animals were sent to a private Gaushala, sought release of the animals, a direction not to transfer their custody, and quashing of the FIR alleging an offence under clause (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Held: the expression “unnecessary pain or sufferings” necessarily requires leading of oral and documentary evidence during trial; on the face of the allegations in the FIR no finding can be recorded that the petitioner was not treating the animals with cruelty, and the allegations are not of a nature from which it can be easily inferred that no offence is made out. Not inclined, keeping in mind the ongoing investigation, to observe further on the arguments; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy available in law.

¶1

915.580.26-wp.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.580 OF 2026

¶3

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL PATIL Date: 2026.03.05 12:15:59 +0530

¶4

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

...

¶10

Mr. A. A. Siddiquie a/w. Mr. Moin Chowdhari and Mr. Suraj D. Chauhan i/b. M/s. A. A. Siddique & Associates, Advocates for the Petitioner

¶11

Mr. K. V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 to 5 State

¶12

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶13

DATE : 13^th FEBRUARY 2026

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

The petitioner has made the following prayers:-

¶16

“a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, and direction directing the Senior Inspector of Police, Shirgaon Parandwadi Police Station (Respondent No. 2), in connection with the illegal confinement, seizure of the vehicle along with the cattle at the instance of the fanatic vigilant group and after examining legalities and proprieties, direct the Senior Inspector of Police to immediately release the vehicle (MH-03-ES0959) and cattle loaded therein.

¶17

(b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to quash and set aside any First Information Report/Complaint registered by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner or his driver regarding the transport of said animals.

¶18

(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, Respondent No. 2 be directed not to transfer the custody of the animals to any private Gaushala or third party.

¶19

(d) That cost of the petition be provided for;

¶20

(e) Such other and further relieves as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be granted to meet the end of justice under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶21

Mr. A. A. Siddiquie, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the offending vehicle bearing registration no.MH-03/ES0959 has been released. However, the animals which were seized by the respondent-authority have been sent to private Gaushala

bgp

Page | 1

915.580.26-wp.docx

illegally. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to various documents annexed with this writ petition and submits that all necessary and requisite permissions were obtained and the animals were also examined by the Doctor who provided certification. However, the police authority acting as appellate authority has ignored all the permissions, certificates and sent the animals to private Gaushala. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the provisions under clause (d) to sub section (1) to section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short, Act of 1960) are not at all attracted in the present case.

¶26

Clause (d) to sub section (1) to section 11 of the Act of 1960 provides that a person shall be treated to have causing unnecessary pain or sufferings to the animal if he 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; thereby the offence under section 11 of the Act of 1960 would be made out. The expression “unnecessary pain or sufferings” shall necessarily require leading of evidence, oral and documentary during the trial and on the face of the allegations in the FIR no finding can be recorded that the petitioner was not treating the animals with cruelty. The allegations made in the FIR are not such that it pertains to some civil dispute or are of such a nature that it can be easily inferred that no offence is made out. However, keeping in mind the ongoing investigation, we are not inclined to observe much on the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner and this writ petition stands disposed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy as available to him in law.

¶27

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶28

bgp

¶29

Page | 2

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

mohammed ali ansari vs Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Anr.

Garware Technical Fibres Limited Thr Its Authorized Signatory and Anr. vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Garware Technical Fibres Limited Thr Its Authorized Signatory and Anr. vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs Cidco Thr Its Managing Director and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs Cidco Thr Its Managing Director and Ors.