Vehicle confiscation under Cow Progeny Act cannot precede trial conclusion or occur without conviction.

The petitioner, seeking his livelihood as a driver, is the registered owner of a vehicle (No. MP-21-G-1814) intercepted on 07.05.2025 for allegedly transporting four bulls illegally

Consequently, Crime No. 163/2025 was registered under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The petitioner’s application for interim custody (Supurdnama) was rejected by the JMFC, Ghansour, on 27.05.2025 because confiscation proceedings were pending before the Collector

This rejection was subsequently upheld by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon, on 27.12.2025

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS

1. Whether an application for interim custody (Supurdnama) of a vehicle can be rejected solely on the grounds that confiscation proceedings are pending before the Collector under the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam

Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of M.P. (WP No. 11356/2024), which established that while the Collector may initiate confiscation proceedings during a trial, no final order of confiscation can be passed until the criminal trial concludes with a conviction and proof of the owner's knowledge or connivance

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to prevent the abuse of the process of law and ensure the ends of justice

The Court observed that the lower courts rejected the Supurdnama application mechanically based on the pendency of confiscation proceedings without considering the settled legal position

Applying the Ramlal Jhariya precedent, the Court reasoned that since a final confiscation order cannot be passed prior to the conclusion of the trial, denying interim custody on that basis is legally unsustainable

The Court highlighted that there was no existing finding of the petitioner’s complicity or knowledge regarding the alleged offense

Furthermore, the Court noted that keeping the vehicle in open police custody would lead to irreversible physical deterioration, thereby infringing upon the petitioner’s right to livelihood

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders dated 27.05.2025 and 27.12.2025. The respondents were directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on Supurdnama subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,50,000/-, a solvent surety of the same amount, and undertakings not to alienate or use the vehicle for unlawful activities