ANILKUMAR RAMSINGH SISODIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.J. Shah, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 23.06.2020 the vehicle of the petitioner (Mahindra Company make - Bolero Car) bearing registration No. GJ-17-UU-6655 came to be seized in connection with a complaint being FIR No.11207002200742 of 2020 registered with Godhra B Division Police Station, District Panchmahals for the offences punishable under sections 279 of IPC, under sections 177 , 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under sections 5(1)(a), 8(4) and 10 of the Animal Preservation Act, under sections 6(a)(1) and 6(3) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and sections 11(d) and 11(f) of the Animal Protection Act. The petitioner, thereafter, moved application before the trial Court seeking release of the muddamal vehicle; however, the same came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Mr. K.K. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not connected with the alleged offence in any manner inasmuch as the alleged act of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter was not done by the petitioner. It was submitted that the contents of the complaint itself suggest that the petitioner had no knowledge about the alleged transportation of cattle in his vehicle, as two other individuals, who were found to be in the vehicle at the relevant time, had fled the place.