Sk. Jainul Haque Vs State of Odisha

Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay in presenting the revision beyond the stipulated period in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶18

3. A delay of 93 days is reported as per the SR.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the reason stated, the revision could not be filed in time and that apart, it is for modification of the conditions imposed by the learned court below, while considering the release of the seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner dealing with an application Section 457 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Recorded the submission of Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State.

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and even though the delay has taken place in filing of the revision, accepting the explanation offered towards such delay, the Court is inclined to condone the same in the interest of justice.

¶23

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

Consequently, the IA is allowed with the delay being condoned.

¶25

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

CRLREV No.461 of 2026

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State.

¶28

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decision by order dated 6^th December, 2025 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.366 of 2025 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of G.R. Case No.2718 of 2025, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim release and custody of the seized Container vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-01-BD-1350 in his favour has been allowed but subject to a deposit towards cost etc. and other conditions.

¶29

Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question allegedly seized in connection with the case pending in the file of learned

¶30

Page 2 of 6

¶31

court below corresponding to Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No.0726 of 2025 registered under Sections 3(5), 303(2) and 317(2) read with Section 7 of the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act besides Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990(1934AD) (shortly as ‘the PCA Act’). It is further submitted that the petitioner is having no other source of income and hence, the seizure vehicle should be released in his favour without imposing any such condition directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirtysix thousand four hundred) payable to Rudrashram Goshala, Maitapur, Balasore towards expenditure, cost etc. vis-à-vis maintenance of the cattle left in their zima. The further submission is that the valuation of the vehicle in question as per the ARTO is Rs.3,36,000/- till 30^th May, 2026 and hence, any such payment of cost by the petitioner is hugely disproportionate and hence, the said condition should be dispensed with directing its release in his favour with the fulfillment of other conditions and to that extent, the impugned order dated 6^th December, 2025 at Annexure-2 is required to be modified.

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State submits that the expenditure already incurred and to be borne by the Foundation is required to be deposited by the petitioner in view of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and hence, it has been so directed by the learned court below for the

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

petitioner to make deposit in terms thereof. In support of such contention, Mr. Behera, learned AGA cited a decision of this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021(II) OLR 1016 , wherein, it has been held that the provisions of the PCA Act and Rules framed thereunder are mandatorily to be followed at the time while considering interim release of the vehicles involved in illicitly transporting the cattle.

¶35

In fact, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and sub-rule (2) thereof, the Magistrate shall consider the rate specified by the Animal Welfare Board or the District Magistrate as the case may be for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized animals while directing its deposit in terms of Section 35(4) of the PCA Act. The rates specified by the Animals Welfare Board of India have been reproduced by this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad (supra) and according to Mr. Swain, learned AGA, it has been duly followed while directing the petitioner to deposit the cost towards maintenance, transport, etc. in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation. A calculation has been reached at by the learned court below accordingly and at last, an amount of Rs.3,36,000/-has been directed to be deposited by the petitioner to the concerned Foundation. While considering the application for release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. the learned court below has imposed such other conditions to be complied with by the petitioner besides deposit of the cost. But, considering the report of the ARTO regarding the valuation of the seized vehicle stands at

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

Rs.3,36,000/-and the deposit having been directed is for an amount of Rs.3,36,000/-, the predicament of the petitioner and his inability to comply such a condition as against the valuation of the vehicle in question, the Court is of the humble that in view of Rule 4 of the Rules and provisions of the PCA Act, he cannot avoid making any such payment towards maintenance and other cost in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation but at the same time, to direct the petitioner to make a onetime deposit for an amount of Rs.3,36,000/-would not be appropriate. Hence, the Court is inclined to direct the learned court below to consider interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-by the petitioner and thereafter, to go for recovery of the balance in instalments. In the considered view of the Court, any such direction to pay the entire amount in lump sum without releasing the vehicle is certainly to cause immense, inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner and he should therefore be allowed to take interim custody of the same and simultaneously, to pay back and the clear outstanding balance in instalments with an initial deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-as such a course of action would instead serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. Such is the view of the Court also for the reason that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the local police exposed to sun and rain and it is not profitable either as its condition is likely to deteriorate being exposed to the vagaries of the climatic conditions. In other words, it is a fit case, where, the above direction is necessary for compliance by

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

the petitioner while receiving the interim custody of the seizure vehicle.

¶40

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶41

In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak to allow interim release and custody of the seizure Container vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-01-BD-1350 in favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership and deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the concerned Foundation with an undertaking regarding payment of the balance of the cost in instalments. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 6^th December, 2025 in Criminal Misc. Case No.366 of 2025 as at Annexure-2 is modified to the extent as aforesaid.

¶42

8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶43

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶44

Tudu

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 30-Jul-2026 13:12:00

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Sk. Jainul Haque v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Jainul Haque 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

Prasanta Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Swarnalata Rout Vs State of Odisha

Jayashree Behera Vs State of Odisha

Mina Kumari Das@Tarai Vs Manoj Kumar Tarai

Santosh Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Padmabati Srichandan Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd., Chhenai