Gaya: In a significant judgment emphasizing the concept of “Voicing for Voiceless,” the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Gaya, has dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the release of seized cattle. While upholding the statutory bar on releasing animals pending trial, the Court, presided over by Judge Ajit Kumar Singh, issued sweeping directions to check the “selective compliance” of animal welfare rules by stakeholders, including the police and private Gaushalas.
The Court has ordered a comprehensive inquiry into the status of all cattle seized in the district of Gaya that are currently in the custody of private agencies. Additionally, observing that prolonged litigation inflicts unnecessary suffering on animals, the Court directed the lower court to conclude the trial in the instant case within one month.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 539/2025, where the police seized 68 cattle (47 buffaloes and 21 Para) on August 11, 2025. The cattle were allegedly found crammed into a container truck in inhumane conditions. Following the seizure, the Investigating Officer (IO) handed over the custody of the animals to the Vrishabhnath Foundation Charitable Trust, Bodh-Gaya.
The revisionist, Aas Mohammad, claiming to be the bonafide owner of the cattle purchased from the Sherghati Cattle Market, filed a petition for their release. He argued that the cattle were his livelihood and that he was willing to pay the maintenance costs.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, vide order dated September 16, 2025, rejected the release petition, citing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner moved the Sessions Court in revision.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist, Md. Qaiser Sarfuddin, argued that the petitioner was the valid owner and that the IO had no objection to the release subject to payment of maintenance costs. He contended that the Vrishabhnath Foundation, impleaded as Opposite Party No. 2, had “no right and title over the Cattle” and no locus standi to resist the release. The counsel further alleged that the Foundation lacked adequate infrastructure, leading to the death of several animals, and suggested collusion between the IO and the Foundation. It was submitted that the Foundation was “unjustly enriched” by taking custody of cattle to eventually claim forfeiture.
Opposing the plea, the Learned District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.), Sri Kumar Vishwaranjan, and the counsel for the Foundation, Sri Shashank Dhar Shekhar, relied heavily on Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. They argued that the legislation clearly prohibits the release of cattle to the owner pending trial. The Foundation’s counsel submitted that the organization works for charitable purposes and voluntarily relinquished its claim for maintenance costs to prove its bonafide.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
On Release of Cattle: The Court upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that there is a “clear legislative bar” under Rule 8 of the 2017 Rules regarding the release of cattle pending trial. The Court observed that “the cattle can not be allowed to be released in favour of Revisionist pending trial. It can only be released in favour of accused, if he is found not guilty of all charges.”
On Systemic Violations and “Selective Compliance”: While dismissing the plea for release, the Court expressed grave concern over the “serious lapses” by stakeholders. The Judge noted that the rules meant for protecting the health and identity of animals were being “flagrantly violated.”
- Violation of Rule 3: The Court found that the seizing authority failed to ensure health inspection, identification, and ear-tagging of the cattle before handing them over, as mandated by Rule 3(a). Furthermore, the custody was handed over to the Foundation without a Magistrate’s direction, violating Rule 3(b). The Court remarked, “In this case the cattle were straight away handed over to Foundation without taking prior permission of the Court.”
- Conduct of the Foundation: The Court noted that the Foundation shifted the seized cattle from Bodhgaya to Banka (a distance of 250 km) without informing the Court or the IO. The Judge termed this a “shocking and serious state of affair.”
- Role of Private Gaushalas: The Court observed that private agencies often resist the release of cattle not for charitable reasons but to ensure forfeiture in their favor upon conviction. The judgment stated: “It is hereby made clear that… It does not confer any ownership right in favour of such Gaushala or Organization as such.”
On Government Responsibility: The Court emphasized that custody of seized animals should primarily be given to Government-run Gaushalas or the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which are under state control. The Court noted that handing custody to private bodies without oversight could lead to “unjust enrichment” and loss to the Government.
On Speedy Trial: Highlighting that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is a fine of merely Rs. 50 (for a first offence), the Court questioned the rationale behind prolonged investigations. The Court observed: “The Legislature might not have come up with a time frame for the disposal of cases of such nature, but it is logical to comprehend that… the trial, or for that matter investigation, cannot be allowed to be done in perpetuity.”
The Court reasoned that prolonged litigation frustrates the object of the Act by inflicting further suffering on the “voiceless cattle.”
The Decision
The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 110/2025 but issued a slew of directions to ensure the effective implementation of the Act:
- Time Frame: The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within one month from the receipt of the order.
- Inquiry Ordered: A Miscellaneous case was directed to be opened. The Learned D.P.O. was ordered to conduct an inquiry and submit a report on the status of all cattle seized in similar cases in Gaya District. The inquiry will cover points such as the number of surviving cattle, postmortem reports of dead cattle, and whether forfeited cattle were put up for adoption as mandated by Rule 9(6).
- Directives to Authorities: The Court directed that copies of the order be sent to the Chairman, Animal Welfare Board of India, the Chief Secretary of Bihar, and the Director General of Police, Bihar, to take cognizance of the issues and ensure the creation of state-owned infrastructure for housing seized animals.
The Judge concluded by stating that the order was passed to ensure the “voice of voiceless is heeded” and to check abuse of authority at any level.
Case Details
- Case Title: Aas Mohammad Vs The State of Bihar & Others
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 110/2025 (S.J.)
- Court: District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Gaya
- Presiding Judge: Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
- Acts Involved: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.
