The Bombay High Court has held that custody of animals seized in cruelty cases cannot be decided solely by mechanically applying Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules, and must instead be determined based on relevant factors including ownership and circumstances of the case. It clarified that Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 is directory and not mandatory, and does not bar handing over custody to the owner.
“The Courts below have failed to exercise the discretion vested in them in accordance with law and have instead treated Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 as mandatory. A conjoint reading of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 35(2) of the PCA Act, 1960, Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017, and the law laid down in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar v. Chakram Moraji Nat , AIR 1998 SC 2769 , makes it clear that there is no absolute bar and the interim custody of the animals can be given to the owner upon undertaking to produce animals as and when the Trial Court directs.”
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Court, which had refused to grant interim custody of three seized bulls to the petitioner and instead directed that they be kept in a gaushala by relying solely on Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules. The petitioner contended that he was the lawful owner of the cattle, purchased for agricultural purposes, and the courts below had failed to consider his ownership and lack of criminal antecedents.
Allowing the petition, Justice Mehroz K. Pathan held that the courts below had misapplied the law by treating Rule 3 as mandatory. The Court clarified that the provision merely enables the Magistrate to house animals in a gaushala during pendency of proceedings and does not create any absolute bar against handing custody to the owner.
The Court referred to Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar v. Chakram Moraji Nat, AIR 1998 SC 2769, where it was held that a gaushala or pinjrapole has no preferential right over the owner and that custody must be decided based on relevant factors such as nature of offence, ownership, and antecedents.
The Court noted that the petitioner had produced purchase receipts, had no criminal history, and was facing a first-time prosecution under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It also observed that there were no allegations of slaughter, and the offence alleged was limited to transportation causing alleged cruelty.
Holding that the discretion vested in courts had not been exercised properly, the High Court found that both the trial court and revisional court had failed to consider binding precedent and relevant factors, thereby rendering their orders unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court quashed both orders and directed that custody of the cattle be handed over to the petitioner within 15 days, subject to conditions including proper care of the animals and their production before authorities when required.
The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not affect the trial on merits.
Appearances
Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shrimant Mundhe, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Application No.912 of 2026.
Mr. K. K. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent-State
