Animals, Like Human Beings Can Understand Physical/Mental Pain; They Do Feel Severity Of Physical Harm Being Inflicted: Gujarat High Court
Noting that animals, like the human beings have the capability of comprehending the physical and mental pain and that they do feel severity of the physical harm inflicted on them, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (12th January) denied bail to a man accused of various offences punishable under The Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act. The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi further...
Noting that animals, like the human beings have the capability of comprehending the physical and mental pain and that they do feel severity of the physical harm inflicted on them, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (12th January) denied bail to a man accused of various offences punishable under The Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act.
The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi further observed that the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and the Animal Preservation Act have been enacted to punish severely the persons indulged in inflicting cruelty to the animals.
The matter before the Court
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 11(1) (d), 11(1) (e), 11(1) (f) and 11(1) (h) of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and Section 6A (4), 6(1) (3) and 8 (2) of the Animal Preservation Act.
As per the complaint, on 01st March 2020, the complainant Niteshbhai Kanubhai along with his fellow Constables who were on duty when they intercepted a truck containing legs and neck of 15 cows and 7 calves and in all 22 animals were tied with ropes in a very cruel manner, and there was no provision for grass or water, and that they were being carried for slaughtering purpose.
During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant – accused was the owner of the said truck and was driving the said truck at the time of incident in question.
The Investigating Officer therefore had arrested the accused by transfer warrant as he was also arrested in some other case.
Arguments put forth
The Accused argued before the Court that he was involved in the business of buying and selling the animals, and was not involved in slaughtering activity. He further submitted that he was falsely implicated in the present case as he was arrested in one another case of similar nature.
On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that applicant is a habitual offender and has also been involved in the other case of similar nature.
Court's Order
The Court noted that the applicant was absconding after the alleged incident and was arrested only in July, 2020. The Court also observed that he was the owner of the truck intercepted by the complainant and was himself driving the said truck in which the animals were subjected to cruelty.
Therefore, the Court found that there is a prima facie involvement of the applicant found in the alleged offences.
Hence, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offences alleged against the applicant and the punishment prescribed for the said offences, the Court refused to grant him the bail.
Case title - Akrambhai Shaukatbhai Posti v. State Of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application NO. 13978 of 2020]
Read Order