Disposed¶17

Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Thr Pso Dhanaj Ps, Washim

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026WP/708/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cattle seizure release; 25 cattle; Crime No.137 of 2025; Panjarapol maintenance charges; condition no.6; Rs.200 per day per cattle; Rs.5,000 per day; Rs.65,000 for 13 days; JMFC Court No.2 Karanja (Lad) order dated 13.06.2025; seizure date 31.05.2025; respondent no.2 non-appearance and non-deposit; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to challenge impugned order; Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; M.M. Nerlikar J.; 06.01.2026; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to challenge the impugned JMFC order as and when the occasion arises; merits of the challenge not adjudicated. ¶17

Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. Thr Pso Dhanaj Ps, Washim — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to challenge the impugned JMFC order as and when the occasion arises; merits of the challenge not adjudicated.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Challenge to the JMFC order dated 13.06.2025 releasing 25 seized cattle subject to condition no.6 imposing maintenance charges of Rs.200/- per day per cattle; the point was not adjudicated, as the petitioner sought and obtained permission to withdraw the petition with liberty.

¶10

Court's answer

Having regard to the fact that respondent no.2 had not complied with condition no.6 of the impugned order dated 13.06.2025, the Court held that the petitioner's submission (permitting withdrawal of the petition with liberty) needed to be accepted.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Permission to withdraw was granted and the petition stood disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order as and when the occasion arises.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (M.M. Nerlikar, J.), decision dated 06.01.2026, in Criminal Writ Petition No.708 of 2025, Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust v. State of Maharashtra and anr. The petition challenged an order dated 13.06.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Karanja (Lad), whereby the application of respondent no.2 for release of 25 cattle seized in Crime No.137 of 2025 was allowed on terms, including condition no.6 requiring payment of maintenance charges to Panjarapol at Rs.200/- per day per cattle from the date of seizure (31.05.2025), computed at Rs.5,000 per day and aggregating Rs.65,000 for 13 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent no.2 had neither appeared in the proceedings nor deposited the amount directed by the impugned order, and sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty. Noting the non-compliance with condition no.6, the Court accepted the submission, permitted withdrawal, and disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order as and when the occasion arises. The merits of the challenge to the condition were not adjudicated; no statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

¶1

1 4.cri.wp.708.2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.708 OF 2025

¶4

Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

¶7

Shri R.R. Gupta, Advocate for petitioners. Shri A.M. Joshi, APP for the State. None for respondent no.2.

¶8

CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 06/01/2026.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Karanja (Lad) on 13.06.2025, wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the application of the present respondent no.2 directing to release 25 cattle seized in Crime No.137 of 2025 in favour of present respondent on certain terms and conditions. One of the condition i.e. condition no.6 of the impugned order reads as under :

¶11

“6. Applicant shall pay maintenance amount charges to Panjarapol in respect of 25 seized cattles at the rate of Rs.200/- per day per cattle from the date of seizure of cattles i.e. 31.05.2025 till date of this order, which comes Rs.200 X 25 = 5000 per day and till today 5000 x 13 = 65000. Further, in failure to pay the maintenance charge and caused delay he has to pay the maintenance charge as mentioned above for per day.”

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 herein has neither appeared in the present proceedings nor he has deposited the amount as

¶13

2 4.cri.wp.708.2025

¶14

was directed vide impugned order. Considering this fact, he submits that it appears that present respondent no. 2 is not interested in getting the cattle release as per direction of the learned JMFC. He further submits that at present, he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order as and when the occasion arises.

¶15

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the respondent no. 2 has not complied with condition no. 6 of the impugned order dated 13.06.2025, in my opinion the submission made by the petitioner needs to be accepted.

¶16

In view of the above, permission is granted.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶18

(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.)

¶19

Trupti

¶20

Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/01/2026 18:08:02

Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Thr Pso Dhanaj Ps, Washim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Parshuram Go Seva Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Thr Pso Dhanaj Ps, Washim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalpesh Shashikant Kakkad vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Jaripatka , Nagpur

Mohammad Nasir S/O Mohammad Shafi Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Kalmeshwar Nagpur

Shamli Amit Gajbhiye vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Frezarpura, Amravati City Dist Amravati

Smt Roshna Abhay Tawani Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Kholapuri Gate, Amravati and Other

Pallavi W/O Prashant Wakdikar and Anr. vs Prashant S/O Ramesh Wakdikar

Himayat Inayat Khan vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Murtizapur City