Patna High Court
Md. Muktar SekhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to payment of the fine under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and furnishing the required bond.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Muktar Sekh and Rocky Sk, feared arrest in connection with a case where 55 cows were seized and they were charged under sections 303(2), 317(5), 317(2), 3(5) of the BNS and sections 11(a), (d), (e), (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. They argued that they were ready to deposit the fine prescribed under Section 11 of the Animals Act and sought pre‑arrest bail. The State opposed the bail. The court noted that the first petitioner owned the cattle and the second was the driver, and that the fine could be paid before the trial. Applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC and the provisions of Section 11, the court granted pre‑arrest bail on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and payment of the fine within four weeks. The order directed the petitioners to be released on bail pending further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted in offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the BNS.
- Whether the fine prescribed under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can be deposited in lieu of custody.
- Whether the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNS are satisfied for granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 303(2), 317(2), 317(5), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- animal cruelty
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- Section 11 fine
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- seizure of cattle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10013 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2025 Thana- Salmari District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Md. Muktar Sekh Son of Afrej Sekh Resident of Hazi Sam Mohammad
Para, P.O.- Sultanganj, P.S.- Kaliachak, District- Malda, West Bengal
2. Rocky Sk. Son of Asidur Sakh Resident of Mohobbatpur, Dakshi, P.O.-
Debipur, P.S.- Kaliachak, District- Malda, West Bengal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Amritanshu Dangi, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
Mr. Md. Aatof Iqbal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Salmari P.S. Case No. 115 of 2025 registered under
Sections 303(2), 317(5), 317(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections
11(a)(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that 55 cows were
seized along with truck bearing registration no. WB830600 by
an officer in-charge of Salmari Police Station.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10013 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/5
petitioners submits that in terms of provision contained under
Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960,
petitioners are ready to deposit the fine before the Court below.
Section 11 of the Animals Act, 1960 is reproduced hereunder:
11. Treating animals cruelly.―(1) If any person―
“(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads,
tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to
unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner
permits, any animal to be so treated; or
(b) 1[employs in any work or labour or for any purpose
any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease], infirmity,
wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being
the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed;
(c) willfully and unreasonably administers any injurious
drug or injurious substance to 2[any animal] or wilfully and
unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or
substance to be taken by 2[any animal]; or
(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or
not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to
unnecessary pain or suffering; or
(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other
receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length
and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for
movement; or
(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or
tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy
chain or cord; or
(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be
exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in
close confinement; or
(h) being the owner of 3[any animal] fails to provide
such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or
(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in
circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by
reason of starvation or thirst; or
(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner,
to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with
contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse
permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the
owner, to die in any street; or
(k) offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his
possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of
mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment;
or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10013 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/5
(l) multilates any animal or kills any animal (including
stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the
heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or]
(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment—
(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal
(including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger
or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of
prey for any other animal; or
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other
animal; or]
(n) organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of,
any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any
animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives
money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or
used for any such purposes; or
(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or
competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the
purpose of such shooting;
he shall be punishable, 4[in the case of a first offence, with fine
which shall not be less than•• ten rupees but which may extend to
fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence
committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine
which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees
but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or
with both].
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), an owner shall
be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to
exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the
prevention of such offence:
Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting
cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and
supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the
option of a fine.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to―
(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding
or nose-roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or
5[by such other methods as may beprescribed]; or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under
the authority of any law for the time being in force; or
(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course
of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any
animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or
preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary
pain or suffering.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10013 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
4/5
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioners.
6. Considering the allegation made in the F.I.R., as
well as, submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the
petitioners are ready to deposit the requisite fine before the
learned District Court and also considering the fact that the
petitioner no.1 has purchased 55 cattle from different persons
through ten voucher on 03.08.2025 and loaded on truck.
Petitioner no.1 is owner and the petitioner no.2 is the driver of
the said truck respectively.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on pre-
arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned C.J.M., Katihar in connection with Salmari P.S. Case
No. 115 of 2025, subject to payment of requisite fine by the
petitioners in terms of provision contained under Section 11
of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10013 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
5/5
Cr.P.C/482(2) of the BNSS.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…