Allowed

Firasat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 May 2023Cr.M.P./4274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed orders denying release of seized trucks in an animal cruelty case. Court held vehicles need not be kept indefinitely at police stations and ordered their release upon the petitioners furnishing an indemnity bond and undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned orders and direction to trial court to grant interim custody of seized trucks upon furnishing an indemnity bond and undertaking.

Firasat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 4274 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 4274 of 2022

¶5

Firasat aged about 47 years, son of late Abdul Nabi, resident of village- Mohammadpur, P.O, and P.S.- Sahzad Nagar, District- Rampur (Uttar Pradesh)

¶6

Ekra Husain @ Bhura @ Ekrar Husain, aged about 56 years, son of Miyan Jaan Residents of Kameri Road, Pippal Gaon, P.O. & P.S.Rampur, District- Rampur Kameri (Uttar Pradesh) …... Petitioners

¶7

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Adv. For the State : Mr. V.K.Vashistha, Spl. PP

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer for quashing the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Cr. Revision No. 31 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application, which was filed against the order dated 14.06.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2021 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra rejected the prayer of the petitioners for release of the trucks bearing registration nos. UP 21CN 1850 and UP 22AT 5814, which were seized in connection with Lawalong P.S. case no. 01 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Sections 414/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 (iv) (v) (viii) of Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and it is alleged that the said trucks were involved in transportation of 61 nos. of bovine animals by perpetrating cruelty upon the animals, which were being transported. It transpires that upon filing of the petition for

¶13

¶14

Cr.M.P. No. 4274 of 2022

¶15

release of the said vehicles, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra called for report from the Investigating Officer of the case and the Investigating Officer , intimated learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, that he has sent a request letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to start confiscation proceeding of both the trucks. The Investigating Officer further reported that there is no need of the vehicles in the investigation of the case and he has no objection, if the vehicles are released but even after that, the petition for release of the said vehicles was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra and the learned Sessions Judge justified the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 14.06.2022, on the ground that a confiscation proceeding is pending in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are indisputably the owners of the seized vehicles and the seized vehicles are no more required for investigation of the case as intimated by the Investigating Officer of the case. It is further submitted that the charge has not yet been framed in the case hence there is no possibility of the trial been concluded, in near future . The Learned counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and submits that vehicles seized by police be not allowed to be kept at Police Station, under the open sky, for an indefinite period and submits that the order dated order dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Cr. Revision No. 31 of 2022 and the order dated 14.06.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2021 be quashed and set aside and the prayer of the petitioners for release of the said two trucks be allowed upon the petitioners’ furnishing adequate securities.

¶17

Learned Spl. PP has no serious objection to the prayer of the petitioners for release of the said vehicles by setting aside the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Cr. Revision No. 31 of 2022 and the order dated 14.06.2022,

¶18

¶19

Cr.M.P. No. 4274 of 2022

¶20

passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2021.

¶21

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 29 of the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 envisages that if the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under the Act, the court upon his conviction thereof may if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment, make an order that the animal with respect to which, the offence was committed, shall be forfeited to the Government. It is a settled principle of law that forfeiture of animals in terms of the provisions of Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 can only be done after the conviction of the accused of the case, which is obvious from the verbatim “if the owner of any animal is found guilty”; as whether or not the owner of an animal is guilty, can only be determined upon, conclusion of the trial. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners; charge has not yet been framed and there is no material in the record to suggest that as to how long the trial will take place, if at all the charge is framed against the petitioners. There is no case number assigned or the provisions cited as to under which, the Deputy Commissioner is said to have been approached by the Investigating Officer of the case, for confiscation of the vehicles.

¶22

It is a settled principle of law held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat (supra) that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the Police Station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time, that can be ordered to be produced.

¶23

The Investigating Officer the case in categorical terms, has intimated the court that the two seized vehicles are no more required for investigation of the case and he has no objection, if the vehicles are released.

¶24

Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned

¶25

¶26

Cr.M.P. No. 4274 of 2022

¶27

Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Cr. Revision No. 31 of 2022 by overlooking the illegality in denying the release of the vehicle by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra only on the ground that, though the owner of the animal has not yet been guilty, still the Investigating Officer of the case has made a request for confiscation of the seized vehicles the Deputy Commissioner as well the order dated 14.06.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2021 arising out of Lawalong P.S. case no. 01 of 2021, for the same reasons, are not sustainable in law, accordingly, the same are set aside.

¶28

Learned trial court is directed to grant interim custody of the trucks bearing registration no. UP 21CN 1850 and UP 22AT 5814 by releasing those in favour of the petitioners, on the petitioners’ submitting an undertaking on the following terms and conditions:

¶29

i. The petitioners shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. One Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/- ) each with two solvent sureties.

¶30

ii. The petitioners shall produce the vehicles as and when required by the court or the I.O. of the case.

¶31

iii. The petitioners shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicles during the pendency of the case nor allow anybody else than them to ride the same.

¶32

iv. The petitioners shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner during the pendency of the case.

¶33

v. Any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court.

¶34

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶35

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶36

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 16^th May, 2023 Smita /AFR

Firasat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firasat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurumukh Singh Alias Mukhe Vs the State of Jharkhand

Murshalim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Deepsikha Dhanuka Vs Ms Feacon Engineers through Its Proprietor Kumud Kumar Jha

Usha Budhia Vs Ms Feacon Engineers through Its Proprietor Kumud Kumar Jha

Israil Ansari Alias Gunuwa Vs the State of Jharkhand