Mohammad Tehsin Vs State of Odisha

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order at Annexure-2, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release and interim custody of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-55-M-4586 in his favour has been declined.

¶17

Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle which is seized in connection with G.R. Case No.803 of 2023 corresponding to Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.311 dated 5^th December, 2023 and the same is lying idle inside the premises of the P.S. concerned, hence, it should be released in his favour but the learned Court below refused such release on the ground that the accused in-charge of the vehicle by then has not been

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

arrested and that apart, the same is required for the purpose of investigation. The submission is that on such grounds, the learned Court below could not have declined release of the seizure vehicle and therefore, the impugned order as at Annexure-2 is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued.

¶20

Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that such seizure of the vehicle has been made while transporting buffaloes therein and hence, involved in the commission of offence punishable under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and as it was also required for the purpose of investigation, the learned Court below rejected the release of the same in favour of the petitioner. Further a decision of this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021 (II) OLR 1016 is cited Mr. Ray, learned AGA with the submission that the cost and maintenance of the buffaloes with other expenses are to be deposited by the petitioner as he is the owner of the seizure vehicle in case it is directed to be released.

¶21

Referring to Annexure-4 series, it is submitted by Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the vehicle and he had an agreement with the accused and as a result, the latter was in possession of it at the time of interception by the local police with the allegation that it was being utilized to transport the buffaloes. But, such denial of the vehicle in question to be released in favour of the petitioner is justified by Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

In fact, in course of hearing, Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the agreement dated 30^th May, 2023 entered between the parties with the delivery of the vehicle in question to the accused and it is claimed that he could not be arrested and is primarily responsible for the alleged transportation of the buffaloes. Since the seizure is of the year 2023 and the cost and maintenance payable at the time of interim release, in case the same is allowed, could be on the higher side, referring to an order of this Court in CRLREV No.491 of 2025, a copy of which is produced by Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner in Court, it is submitted that such release should be directed with any such assessment by the learned Court below but on receiving a deposit of Rs.2 lac in advance.

¶24

Law is well settled that any such vehicle, unless required for specific purpose during investigation, should not be detained as it is likely to be exposed to sun and rain and ultimately damaged diminishing its value, which is to benefit none. No reason, in particular, has been assigned as to why the alleged vehicle should be detained by claiming that the same is necessary for further investigation. The alleged incident and seizure of the vehicle is of the year 2023 and this Court is under the impression that the investigation must have been over by now. In any case, the impugned order does not reveal any specific purpose for which the vehicle was to be detained.

¶25

Alive to the settled legal position and the fact that the petitioner is the rightful claimant of the vehicle and hence, he is eligible and entitled to receive its interim custody subject to

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

compliance of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, the Court reaches at the conclusion that it is not justified on the part of the learned N.G.N.-cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi to refuse such release of the seizure vehicle, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with followed by a direction to release it forthwith subject to suitable conditions imposed adhering to Rules 4 & 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (in short ‘the Rules’) accepting a deposit of Rs.2 lac from him and subject to proof of its ownership and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶28

In the result, revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by an assessment on cost and maintenance etc. payable at the time of release the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-55-M-4586 in connection with G.R. Case No.803 of 2023 by imposing suitable conditions having regard to the provisions of the Act and Rules upon receiving an amount of Rs.2 lac with an undertaking by the petitioner to deposit the balance of the amount determined in installments and upon verification of the documents in support of its ownership. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-2 is set aside.

¶29

10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶30

(R.K. Pattanaik)

¶31

Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHYAlok Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:39:09

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Mohammad Tehsin v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Tehsin v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayana Mangaraj Vs Rajesh Pravakar Patil,Commnr., B.M.C, Bbsr

Anam Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Sundar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Nakula Sabar Vs State

Sarat Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Swadesh Nayak Vs State of Odisha