Akil Shaikh Ayyub vs State Through Police Station Phulambri — 34/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 28th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU110003402026
e-Filing Number
06-03-2026
Filing Number
265/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
34/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Phulambri
Judge
1-Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
56
Police Station
Phulambri
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Akil Shaikh Ayyub
Adv. Qureshi A.H.
Respondent(s)
State Through Police Station Phulambri
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge JD and JMFC, Phulambri
Disposed
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 24-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 23-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 18-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Akil Shaikh Ayyub v. State (Case 34/2026) The court allowed the applicant's petition to release a seized Mahindra Bolero pickup truck on a supurnama (personal bond) of Rs. 5 lakhs with surety, despite the vehicle being used in illegal cattle transportation. The court held that while a prima facie case of animal cruelty exists, retaining the vehicle served no purpose as investigation was largely complete and prolonged detention would cause deterioration. However, the court imposed stringent conditions: the applicant cannot dispose of or alter the vehicle's identity, must produce it as directed, and the vehicle remains security for all animal care costs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 2017. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Akil Shaikh Ayyub v. State (Case 34/2026) The court allowed the applicant's petition to release a seized Mahindra Bolero pickup truck on a supurnama (personal bond) of Rs. 5 lakhs with surety, despite the vehicle being used in illegal cattle transportation. The court held that while a prima facie case of animal cruelty exists, retaining the vehicle served no purpose as investigation was largely complete and prolonged detention would cause deterioration. However, the court imposed stringent conditions: the applicant cannot dispose of or alter the vehicle's identity, must produce it as directed, and the vehicle remains security for all animal care costs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 2017. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts