Orissa High Court
Srikant Naik vs State Of Odisha on 25 June, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.45 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.)
Srikant Naik .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-11.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.06.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner filed the present CRLMC under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
challenging the judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2023.
By the said judgment, the revisional court upheld the order dated
28.07.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banarpal in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 25 of 2023, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section
457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of a Mahindra Bolero pick-up van
bearing Registration No. OD-19W-1142 was rejected.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The vehicle was seized in connection with G.R. Case No. 367 of 2023
corresponding to Banarpal P.S. Case No. 173 of 2023. The prosecution
case is that on 06.05.2023, police personnel of Banarpal P.S., while on
patrolling duty, received reliable information that a Bolero pick-up van
was transporting cattle from Santri Chhaka side towards Tentulihata
village. The police chased the vehicle, whereafter the driver allegedly
fled from the spot leaving the vehicle behind. On search, five bullocks
were found inside the vehicle with their legs and heads tied tightly and
with no sufficient space for movement.
(ii) The police seized the pick-up van along with the five bullocks in the
presence of witnesses. The bullocks were thereafter handed over to a
Gaushala for safe custody and care. During investigation, the
Investigating Officer ascertained that the seized vehicle belonged to the
present petitioner, and the petitioner along with another person, namely
Hatia Naik, was cited as accused. The case involved offences under
Sections 379, 411, 294, 353, 506 and 34 IPC read with Section 11 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
(iii) The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 457
Cr.P.C. before the learned J.M.F.C., Banarpal for interim release of the
vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the application mainly on the
grounds that the vehicle was reported to be required for further
investigation and that the petitioner had not complied with the
obligation relating to care and maintenance of the seized cattle under
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Care and Maintenance of
Case Property Animals Rules, 2017. The petitioner’s revision against the
said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Angul.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contended that he is admittedly the registered owner of
the seized vehicle, but he had no knowledge of the alleged illegal
transportation of cattle and was not present at the spot when the vehicle
was intercepted. According to him, the allegation relates to the manner
in which the vehicle was allegedly used by the driver, and mere
ownership of the vehicle cannot by itself justify continued detention of
the vehicle in police custody, particularly when the petitioner claims
that he had no role in the alleged offence.
(ii) It was argued that the learned J.M.F.C. and the learned revisional court
failed to appreciate that the vehicle was lying in the police station
premises and was exposed to deterioration due to weather and non-use.
The petitioner submitted that the vehicle is his source of livelihood and
that keeping it idle would cause financial loss and render the vehicle
useless. Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, where the Supreme Court
discouraged keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods
and emphasised release on appropriate conditions.
1
AIR 2003 SC 638
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
(iii) The petitioner further submitted that the investigation had already been
completed and chargesheet had been filed. Therefore, according to him,
the earlier report of the I.O. stating that the vehicle was required for
investigation had lost relevance. Once investigation was over, there was
no further justification to keep the vehicle in police custody merely on
the ground that it may be required for investigation.
(iv) On Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules, the petitioner contended that the
Magistrate was required to determine the amount sufficient to cover the
reasonable cost of transport, maintenance and treatment of the animals,
based on input from the jurisdictional veterinary officer. According to
the petitioner, unless such amount was determined by the Magistrate,
the petitioner could not be faulted for not depositing the amount. He
therefore argued that the subordinate courts misapplied Rule 5 by
rejecting the release application instead of fixing the amount and
imposing suitable conditions.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The opposite party supported the orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C.
and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul. It was submitted that
the case involved illegal and cruel transportation of five bullocks in a
pick-up van, with their heads and legs tied and without adequate space
for movement. Since no person came forward to claim ownership of the
bullocks, the animals were rightly sent to the Gaushala for safe custody
and care.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
(ii) The opposite party relied heavily on Rules 3 and 5 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals
Rules, 2017. It was contended that where animals are seized and housed
in a Gaushala or similar institution, the accused and owner are liable to
bear the reasonable cost of transport, treatment, maintenance and care
of the animals. It was also submitted that where a vehicle is involved in
such an offence, Rule 5(4) permits the vehicle to be held as security.
(iii) It was argued that the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle
allegedly used for transportation of cattle, cannot avoid statutory
responsibility merely by saying that he was not personally present at
the spot. The opposite party submitted that the vehicle owner,
transporter, consignor, consignee, agents and other parties involved are
jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care
of the animals under Rule 5(5) of the 2017 Rules.
(iv) The opposite party further contended that the petitioner had not paid
any amount towards maintenance, feeding, health inspection or care of
the seized bullocks from the date of seizure. Therefore, unless the
petitioner first clears the expenses towards care and inspection of the
animals, the vehicle should not be released in his favour. On this basis,
it was submitted that the CRLMC petition had no merit and deserved
dismissal.
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE:
5. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge made the following
observations:
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
(i) The learned Additional Sessions Judge treated the challenge as a
criminal revision under Sections 397 read with Sections 399 to 401
Cr.P.C. and examined whether the order of the learned J.M.F.C.,
Banarpal refusing interim release of the vehicle called for interference.
The revisional court first noticed the factual background of the seizure,
namely that five bullocks were found inside the vehicle in a tied and
cramped condition, that the driver fled from the spot, that the animals
were handed over to a Gaushala, and that the petitioner was later found
to be the owner of the seized vehicle.
(ii) The ASJ considered the petitioner’s argument that he was only the
owner of the vehicle, that he had no idea about the alleged offence, and
that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in the police station. The court
also noticed the petitioner’s reliance on the principle that seized vehicles
should not ordinarily be kept idle for long periods and may be released
on appropriate conditions. However, the court did not treat this
principle as absolute, particularly because the matter involved the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the special 2017 Rules dealing
with custody and care of case property animals.
(iii) The central reasoning of the ASJ was based on Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules.
The court observed that the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle,
had a duty or responsibility to pay the amount towards maintenance
and health inspection of the seized animals. The court noted that the
petitioner had not filed any document to show that he had taken steps
for the treatment, maintenance or care of the bullocks kept in the
Gaushala. Therefore, the court found that the petitioner had not
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
satisfied the statutory obligations attached to release of a vehicle
involved in an animal cruelty case.
(iv) The ASJ also relied on precedents indicating that in cases under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the owner of the vehicle from
which animals are seized may be made liable for the cost of transport,
treatment and care of the animals until conclusion of trial. The court
also referred to the principle that while directing interim release of
vehicles in such cases, courts must consider the mandatory
requirements of the P.C.A. Act and the 2017 Rules. Thus, the ASJ
upheld the Magistrate’s refusal primarily on the petitioner’s failure to
show compliance with the animal-care obligations and on the report
that the vehicle was required for investigation.
(v) In effect, the ASJ’s judgment gives priority to the statutory scheme
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the 2017 Rules over
the petitioner’s general claim for release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The
court did not finally decide guilt or innocence of the petitioner, but held
that for interim release, the petitioner had to satisfy the court that he
had discharged or was willing to discharge the liability towards care
and maintenance of the seized animals. Since no such material was
produced, the revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.
V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
7. The petitioner (vehicle owner) challenges the denial of interim release of
his Mahindra Bolero pick-up van (Reg. No. OD-19W-1142) seized in
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
Banarpal P.S. Case No.173 of 2023 (G.R. 367/2023) under Sections 379,
411, 294, 353, 506, 34 IPC and Section 11 PCA Act. On 06.05.2023 the
police intercepted the vehicle carrying five bullocks in a tied and
cramped condition. The driver fled, and the vehicle with the tied
bullocks was seized. The animals were handed to a Gaushala (animal
shelter). Investigation revealed the petitioner as the registered owner;
he and one Hatia Naik were made accused. After chargesheeting, the
petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457
CrPC. The JMFC, Banarpal refused release, noting the vehicle’s
evidentiary use and that the petitioner had not complied with
obligations under Rule 5 of the PCA (Care & Maintenance of Case
Property Animals) Rules, 2017 by depositing maintenance costs for the
seized cattle. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Angul,
affirmed this order by judgment dated 23.02.2024, holding that Rule 5(4)
& (5) PCA Rules make the owner liable to pay for animal care, which
was unmet. The petitioner has now filed this Criminal Misc. (482)
petition in the High Court.
8. The petitioner admits ownership of the vehicle but disclaims any
knowledge of the offence or involvement in the illegal transport of
cattle. He contends that under Section 457 CrPC a vehicle not needed
for further investigation should not be kept idle at a police station, as
doing so depreciates its value. He notes the trial is over, chargesheet
filed, so the vehicle is no longer required for investigation. The
petitioner also points out that Rule 5(1) of the 2017 Rules requires the
Magistrate to fix a reasonable maintenance amount for the animals,
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
with veterinary input, and direct execution of a bond, and he argues
that since no such determination was made, he cannot be faulted for not
depositing it. The petitioner urges that the courts below should have
quantified the maintenance charges and imposed conditions rather than
outright reject his release application.
9. The State maintains that the case involves cruel transportation of
animals under the PCA Act, and no one has claimed the bullocks so far.
The Gaushala is incurring costs for their care. It relies on Rule 5(4)-(5) of
the 2017 Rules, which mandate that where a vehicle is involved in an
animal transport offence, the magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be
held as a security, and the vehicle owner and all other parties are jointly
and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of
animals. The State argues that mere ownership suffices to incur this
liability, regardless of the owner’s alleged lack of personal participation,
and since the petitioner has not deposited any maintenance cost to date,
the vehicle cannot be released. The State thus contends the impugned
orders are correct and must be upheld.
10. In considering the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Court must
balance the general right of an owner to claim release of his vehicle
(under Section 457 CrPC) against the special statutory scheme of the
PCA Act, 1960 and the 2017 Rules.
11. First, the jurisprudence on release of seized property generally favours
prompt restoration on bond. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the
Supreme Court held that it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at
the police stations for a long period and that a Magistrate should pass
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
appropriate orders immediately to return vehicles on proper bond and
security. The Court held as follows:
“Valuable Articles and Currency Notes With regard to
valuable articles, such as golden or silver ornaments or
articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it
is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years
till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to
be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass
appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451
Cr.P.C. at the earliest.”
12. This reflects the purpose of Section 451/457 CrPC to prevent undue
hardship to owners and police storage issues. However, this principle is
subject to any overriding special law.
13. Here the special law is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and its
rules. The PCA Act is a remedial welfare enactment meant to protect
animals and must be liberally construed in favour of the weak and
infirm. Judicial vigilance is required so that benefits conferred by such
welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices. The PCA Rules,
2017, made under Section 38 of the Act, implement these objectives by
providing for the custody and care of seized animals and apportioning
costs of their maintenance.
14. Of particular relevance is Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules (Execution of bond).
Clause (4) of Rule 5 states that “where a vehicle has been involved in an
offence, the magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held as a security.”
Clause (5) mandates that in offences relating to animal transport, the
vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and other
involved parties “shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport,
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
treatment and care of animals”. These provisions clearly impose a
statutory burden on the vehicle owner to ensure the animals are
maintained and cared for by footing the expenses.
15. In the present case, after seizure the five bullocks were handed to a
Gaushala, which has been incurring the cost of their upkeep. Rule 5(1)
required the Magistrate to determine an amount sufficient to cover all
reasonable costs, based on veterinary input, and direct the owner and
accused to execute a bond for that amount. That has not been done. The
petitioner has not tendered any maintenance charges or executed any
bond. Thus, he has ignored or defaulted on the very obligations that the
law deems essential to protect the animals.
16. Even other High Courts have addressed such issues. The Bombay High
Court, for instance, has observed that although Section 457 CrPC can
apply to vehicles seized under the PCA Act, such release can only be on
terms that ensure the animals’ maintenance. In Roshan Omkar Tarare v.
State of Maharashtra2, the Court held as follows:
“13. Thus, the sub-Rule 5 of Rule 5 states that in case of
offence relating to transport of animals, the vehicle owner,
consigner, consignee, transporter, agents and any other
parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the
cost of transport, treatment and care of animals. The
aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that the arrangement
for maintenance of animals is to be made by the person from
whose possession the animals are seized in a crime. It is also
seen that if crime is relating to transport of animals and
vehicle is involved in the crime then the vehicle owner,
consigner, consignee, transporter, agents in any other2
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2/2022Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the
cost of transport, treatment and care of animals. Thus, there
is a specific provision and the vehicle owner, consigner,
consignee, transporter and agents are duty bound to pay for
the maintenance of said cattle which are seized from their
possession.”
17. On these lines, unless the owner pays or bonds the cost of maintenance,
no release should be ordered.
18. The petitioner’s reliance on Sunderbhai Desai (supra) is therefore of
limited value. Sunderbhai (supra) dealt with general offences and seized
property, but did not involve an overlay of special welfare rules. Here,
the PCA Act‘s purpose and its Rules have primacy. Where welfare
legislation is sought to be circumvented through clever devices, the
Court must look beyond form and determine whether the rules are
being used for a purpose inconsistent with animal welfare. Releasing
the vehicle without ensuring their maintenance of the seized animals
would frustrate the object of the PCA Act.
19. The petitioner urges that since the chargesheet is filed, the vehicle is not
needed for investigation and should be released on bond. Even
assuming the vehicle’s investigatory utility is now exhausted, Rule 5(4)
explicitly directs that such a vehicle shall be held as security. The
mechanical progress of the criminal case does not absolve the owner of
the animal-care obligations. In fact, once animals are handed to a
Gaushala, the owner’s liability for maintenance accrues from the seizure
date until final disposal. The petitioner suggests that the Magistrate first
fix the maintenance amount and then entertain release. This Court notes
that Rule 5(1) does indeed require the Magistrate to fix a fair cost and
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
then demand a bond. But until such steps are taken and complied with,
there is no ground to disturb the order of retention.
20. This Court must therefore conclude that the learned courts below
correctly applied the law. The petitioner, as owner of the vehicle used in
animal transport, is statutorily liable to pay for the care of the seized
cattle. Having defaulted in this duty (no bond executed, no deposit
made), he cannot claim release of the vehicle under Section 457.
Releasing the vehicle without ensuring maintenance would defeat the
very purpose of the PCA Act and its Rules.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned
orders. The requirements under Rule 5(4) and Rule 5(5) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case
Property Animals) Rules, 2017 are mandatory in nature and have not
been complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner’s remedy under
Section 457 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a manner that bypasses the
statutory obligations relating to maintenance, treatment and care of the
seized animals. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
22. The order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banarpal and
the judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Angul are hereby upheld. The seized vehicle shall
continue to remain held as security under Rule 5(4) of the 2017 Rules.
However, it shall be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach
the learned trial court after complying with the statutory conditions,
including execution of the required bond and deposit/payment of the
amount determined towards care and maintenance of the seized animal.
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2026 11:31:33
23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th June, 2026/
Page 14
