Interim Custody of Seized Cattle: Owners Have Better Claim Than Gaushalas for First-Time Offenders

sketch of the Bombay High Court
Case
IRFAN S/O ROJU DEEN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THE PSO., PS SAMUDRAPUR, TAH. HINGANGHAT, DIST. WARDHA AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 11-09-2026)
Law
Code of Criminal Procedure, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Highlights of the Judgment:

  • Examination of interim custody provisions for seized animals under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Interpretation of Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regarding judicial discretion.
  • Analysis of Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.
  • Application of Supreme Court precedent regarding the absence of preferential rights for a Pinjrapole or Gaushala over an owner.
  • Evaluation of relevant factors including criminal antecedents, first-time prosecution, and the welfare of seized cattle.