A Mumbai court rejected a man’s plea to get back a horse used in ceremonial rides, prioritising animal welfare. The horse, seized after a PETA complaint of cruelty, was handed to a recognised animal welfare centre. The court noted the owner lacked valid licenses and the interim custody order could not be challenged
-1771507994049_d.png "Animal welfare over livelihood: Mumbai court refuses to return horse used in ceremonial rides")
Plea for custody of ceremonial horse gets rejected by court. Representational Image
A Mumbai court has ruled in favour of animal welfare, rejecting a man’s request to get back a horse seized by police on cruelty charges. The horse had been used in traditional ceremonial rides and was taken to an Animal Welfare Board-recognised centre.
Additional Sessions Judge Mujibodeen S Shaikh upheld a magistrate’s decision that emphasised the horse’s welfare over the owner’s livelihood.
Owner claims right to livelihood
The horse’s owner, Jagannath Kunjuprasad Rajbhar, runs a ceremonial horse rental business. He argued that he had provided the horse for marriage functions in the past and possessed the required documents. He claimed that a false FIR was filed against him based on a photograph from a May wedding.
“Detention of the horse has caused unnecessary hardship to my business,” Rajbhar told the court, urging that the animal be returned to him as per PTI reports.
Police and PETA oppose return
The police opposed Rajbhar’s plea, citing a 2015 Bombay High Court ruling banning Victoria horse-drawn carriages in Mumbai due to animal cruelty and lack of licenses. PETA, the intervener in the case, requested that the horse be kept in the Animal Rahat Organisation, which is recognised by the Animal Welfare Board.
The magistrate noted, “Prima Facie, it seems he is doing such business without any valid licence,” and handed the horse to PETA on a bond of Rs 2 lakh, with the condition it be returned only if directed by the court.
Sessions Court rejects revision plea
Rajbhar challenged the magistrate’s order in the sessions court, but it was rejected. The judge agreed with the submissions of the police and PETA, noting the appeal was against an interlocutory (interim) order.
“After having considered the entire facts and circumstances, it becomes crystal clear the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is an interlocutory order,” the sessions judge said as per PTI reports.
The ruling reinforces the legal focus on animal welfare, confirming that claims for interim custody cannot override regulations protecting animals.
(With PTI inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
