When bullocks can be released on supratnama?

 With the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties I have examined the documents placed on the record of the application. The charge-sheet is filed against Shaikh Jabbar Shaikh Khairu, Shaikh Budan Shaikh Ahmad, Shaikh Kahar Shaikh Khairu, Shaikh Rajjak Shaikh Kalu and Shaikh Sharif Shaikh Rafiq. The applicant is not shown as accused. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to show anything from the charge-sheet on the basis of which it can be said that the claim of the applicant for grant of interim custody of 7 bullocks cannot be considered. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has produced on the record of the trial Court the receipts issued by the Market Contractor of Grampanchayat, Hiwarkhed and by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee to substantiate the claim of the applicant that he has purchased the 7 bullocks. Surprisingly, the learned Magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge have not dealt with the documentary evidence. Though the non-applicant No. 1 refuted the claim of the applicant regarding ownership in respect of 7 bullocks by alleging that the receipts are bogus and fabricated, the learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out that such charge is levelled against the applicant. As stated above, the applicant is not even shown as accused.

8. In the above facts, I find that the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of the bullocks and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders are required to be set aside and the application filed by the applicant has to be allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (Apl) No. 188 of 2014

Decided On: 30.03.2016

Shaikh Yusuf  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Coram:Z.A. Haq, J.

Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4755

Print Page

Whether owners of cattles roaming on Roads should be prosecuted?

So far as cows and cattle roaming on roads are concerned, it
is duty of Nagar Nigam and Police to remove them and to
ensure that no cows or animals come on road creating
obstruction to traffic and threat to life.
Secretary, Nagar Vikas, State of U.P. is directed to issue
necessary instructions in this regard to Nagar
Ayukts/Executive Officers of local bodies. If animals are
spotted on city roads and not removed quickly, proper action
may be contemplated. Superintendents of Police are directed
to extend necessary assistance to the Municipal
Boards/Municipal Corporations in carrying out the above
directions.
Cattle owners cannot be seen withholding their hands, to
leave the cattle on road surviving on water of drains/sewer
and garbage which is definitely a cruelty. As such, owners of
such animals should be prosecuted under the provisions of
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Act
and Sections 289, 428, 429 I.P.C. as well. This will deter
cattle owner from frequently leaving animals free on roads,
putting their as well as citizens' life in danger.
Cows basking on road/traffic islands and digging polythene
in garbage yard is not a pleasant sight, especially in the
capital city of State. To rid Lucknow of this menace, Nagar16
Ayukta, Lucknow is directed to launch a drive immediately
in the light of discussion made above, with the help of
police force to be provided by S.S.P.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
LAKHNOW BENCH
Case :- BAIL No. - 9113 of 2015
Imtiyaz V  State Of U.P.
Dated;04/12/2015

Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by magistrate for releasing cattle on supratnama who are taken for slaughtering

 In Krushi Goseva Sangh's case (supra), this Court has observed that section 6 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act imposes restrictions on slaughter of scheduled animals and offence punishable under the Act is declared as cognizable by section 10. It is further held that the animal which is the subject of crime can safely be held to be the "property" regarding which offence is committed and recourse can be taken to section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for seeking a direction from the Competent Court of law for the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. The order should be for preservation and protection of cows and scheduled animals and not for their slaughter or destruction. This Court further observed thus:
It is now well settled that what is directly forbidden cannot be indirectly permitted. The observations and guidelines of High Court in W.P. No. 714 of 1986 decided on 12.8.1996, Ejaz Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra should be kept in view while passing an order under section 451. If Organizations like Goseva Sangh or the Panjarapole come forward for taking responsibility of preservation and protection of cattle, then they should be preferred but before handing over the custody to any person or institution, the Court should ascertain whether they would be able to make adequate arrangements for maintenance, preservation and protection of cattle....
Equivalent Citation: 2012BomCR(Cri)469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application No. 121 of 2011
Decided On: 27.07.2011

 Go-Vigyan Anusandhan Kendra  Vs.  State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Bhangale, J.

Print Page