High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS playin:q that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand""ot 6t"" ti"Ot oi Cl.in]in"t Petition' the High Court may ,n;;;"ceedings in .RLMP No 2T or 2025 in be oleased to set-a-sidei ;;; cr No 27of 2025 Dt ztiniiiii'i'wunkioi I-o.l1h" file of the ADDITIoNAL JUNToR ctvtl JUDGE l6[i'r'iloriini r"rAcrsrnnrE FIRSr cLAss Ar ASIFABAD t.A. NO :3OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the .circumstances StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCorrt.may suspend the orders in the proceedings vide CRLMP -|o ?7,of ;;;;r;;1o zois i" cr.No. 27of 2025 Dt. 27t2t2125 (pS wankidi) on the file of _the n-OOrrrOr.rnr- JUNIOR CVtt- .tUOCe -CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRSr CLASS AT ASIFABAD I.A. NO:1OF 202s petition under Section 528 of BNSS oravi crounos- oft ,,;il?%i|,iili,,'i"rff"U;liffi; ;:"f[i:"T:Jillii:X,:l .or li:t;,11lmEs,#[&,,:H"3it,f ,1fi ",:axfrr;f f [,ili111? L u oc unr-J u6,-.,o1 ri.'I*'"d::l il g rile or the oNAL J u N r oR c r vr L retiefs as ;L H;;;;;;;,.:rs r RAIE FtRSr clAss ar nsrpnaAD ,*.ri"i lir,"r. court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ^ADD^rr l-his petition comrr Grounds of criminal o"tn NA RA s r M HA *o o oo," on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none "iiJ "1",1 "' on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of t *:,* B:1, :;:: :r..'?il *::m "rO*, a, the Respondent No2 and " The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No'4571 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioner/ third party against the order dated 27 'O2 '2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2025 in Cr'No'27 of 2025 of by the learned AdditionalJuniorCivilJudge-cum-JudicialMagistrateof First Class at Asifabad'

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos'2 and 3/owners of the buffaioes frled a petition under Section 5O3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' 2023 (for short' 'BNSSJ seeking release of the property i'e' 09 bulls from respondent No.2 and 11 bulls from respondent No'3 total 20 bullswhichworthofRs'2'50'O0O/-whichwasseizedin Cr.No.27 of 2025 The trial Court after hearing both sides' vide order dated 27 -O2'2O25 allowed the petition and the property was returned to the owner of the property' Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition. z SKS.J Crl.P.No.45z r of 2O2s

3. Heard Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearrng on behalf of the petltioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing on behalf of State. Though notice served upon respondent No.1 respondent Nos.2 and 3, none appeared on their behalf 4' Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal, improper, and liable to be set aside and that the trial Court erred in relying on the statements of the 26611s6d, who is a highly interested party, without proper scrutiny. He further submitted that the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are clearly made out from the FIR and the confession statement, and that the accused is engaged in cow slaughter business under the guise of livestock trade and that the unoflicial respondents, in collusion with respondent No.2, hatched a pre-planned conspiracy and approached the triar court through backdoor methods seeking interim custody of the seized cattle.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the offence is punishable 3 SKS,J Crt.P. 0-4571 of 2025 r-rnder Section 11(1)(a) and 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, i960 (PCAA) and that the seized animals are currently housed safeiy in the petitioner's Gowshala and are being ProPerlY cared for' and handing them over to the unofficial resPondents, who are accused of crueltY and slaughter, would endanger their lives' as they are likely to be taken directly to slaughterhouses' He further contended that the trial Court wrongly relied on documents of ownership submitted by the unofficial respondents without conducting any physical verihcation' He further contended that there is no evidence to support their claim of agricultural activity to justify the ownership of the cattle and that it is also brought to the notice of the Court that a similar pattern is being followed in several other police stations where, after seizure of cattle by the police' they are beingreleasedbasedonfalseclaimsbysuchrespondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted thattheunofficialrespondentsarenothingbutagentsor cow slaughtering businesses and that the provisions of the owners of respondents have violated several Animals Rules, 1978, including failure to TransPort of 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4571 of 2025 produce veterinary fitness certilicates (Form H), absence of hrst aid krts in vehicles, no proper labeling on trucks, lack of sufficient space for each animal, inadequate feed and water during transport, absence of anti-slipprng material, and transporting more than six animals per vehicle. He pointed out that due to the overcrowded and iilegal transport of cattle, many animals were injured. The trial Court failed to consider this crucial aspect and passed the impugned order in complete disregard of Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Ru1es, 1978, Rute 125-E of the Central Motor Vehicle (1 1th Amendment) Rules, 2OOZ, and, Section l7 of the Telangana prohibiLion of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act.

7. The iearned counsel also contends that the trial Court ignored the condition imposed upon the unofficial respondents to bear the cost of feeding and caring for the cattle, and completely overlooked the concern of the petitioner for the welfare of the animals and that even the doctor's certificate requested by the SHO to assess the hea,lth condition of the animals was not considered and SI(s'J Crl.P,No.4571 of 2O2s instead, the trial Court passed the order without proper verification or medical assessment' In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on 8. the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja & Othersl, wherein it was held that animals have the right to live with dignity under Article 2l read with Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that if the seized animals are released to the unofficial respondents, they will be slaughtered, which amounts to violation of their fundamental rights. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Petition. g. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner slating that there is no proof to justify the release of the goods lo the complainant during the pendency of the trial' He, therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. ' 12ott1 I scc s+t 6 sKs,J Crl.P-No.45ZI of2O2S

10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counser for the petitioner and the rearned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and upon perusal of the materral placed on record, it is evident that the petition before the trial Court was filed seeking interim cus[ody of the seized catt]e. As per Section 3(b) of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 196O, every person having charge of animals is duty_ bound to ensure their well_being and prevent Lrnnecessary suffering. The offence alleged in the prescnt case is punishable under Sections 11(t)(a) and 1 l(d) of the said Act, and the transportation of the animals in question appears to have been undertaken in violation of the provisrons of the Transport of Animals Rules, 192g, particularly Rule 56(c), as well as Rule 125-E of the Central Motor Vehicles (1lth Amendment) Rules, 2007 and Section 17 of the Telangana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal preservation Act.

11. The petitioner has placed on record substantial material to demonstrate that the seized animals were being transported without adherence to statutory safeguards, including the absence of veterinary Iitness certification, overcrowding, inadequate space and water, and lack of anti- 7 SKS'J Crl.P.No.4571 of 2025 slipping material' Further' the trial Court appears to have reiied on documents of ownership produced by the unofhcial respondents without any physical verification or inquiry into their alleged agricultural activity' It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has been maintaining the animals in a registered Gowshala under proper care and supervision from the date of seizure

12. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Gazette Notification dated 23'O5'2O17 under G'S'R'495(E) Prevention of Curelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of 2016, wherein, Rule No'3 Case ProPertY Animals) Rules' reads as follows: "3. Custody of Animats pending litigation - When an animal has been seized under the plovision of the Act or the rules made thereunder (a) the authority seizing the animal shal1 ensure health inspection, identification and marking such animal, through the jurisdlctional veterinary ofhcer deployed at Government Veterinary Hospital of the area and marking may be done by ear tagging or by chipping or by any less irksome advance technolory but marking by 8 SI<S.J Crl-P-No.457l of 2O2S hot branding, cold branding and other injuries marking shall be prohibited; (b) the magistrate may direct the animal to be housed at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SpCA, Animal Welfare Organzation or Gaushala dunng the pendency of the litigat ion. " -- Hon'ble

13. In view of the above facts and crrcumstances, and keeping in mind the constitutionar obrigation under Articre and the fundamental principles laid down by the s1-A(g) Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India (cited supra), wherein it was held that animals have a right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered view that the interim order passed by the trial court, directing the rerease of the seized bulls to the alleged o\r/ners during the pendency of trial, is not onry contrary to the spirit of animar u.erfare ]aws but also premature and unsustainable. The welfare of the animals must be treated as paramount, and therr custody cannot be handed over to parties against whom allegations of cruelty and illegal slaughter are pending, without due verification_ I o srs'J crr.P.No.4571 of 2025

14. In this regard' it is apposite to refer to Rule 3 of the PreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(CareandMaintenanceof Case ProPertY Animals) Rules' 2016, notihed vide G'S'R 495(E) dated 23'05'2017 ' which stipulates that seized animalsmustundergohealthinspection,identiflrcation,and marking through the jurisdictional government veterinary officer, employing non-invasive techniques such as ear tagging or chipping, while expressly prohibiting injurious methods iike hot or cold branding Further' the said Ruie authorizes the Magistrate to direct that the animal be housed at an infrrmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare or Gaushala, for the duration of the These statutory safeguards are aimed at humane treatment and safety of animals ensuring the pending litigation and must be observed in letter and spirit' Organization, proceedings.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 27 'O2 '2025 passed in Cr1.M.P.No.27 of 2025 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Asifabad' The seized animals shall remarn tn the custodY of the petitioner's Gowshala until further orders from the trial cft.P_No.4s?t of2025 --- Court, which may take a on evidence adduced ,rr* a":"'sion on the custody based Miscellaneous stand closed. applications, if any pending, shall also oe"rrt"o';ffi1r; //TRUE COPYII \\ To, ; il::fli+#d#,rjf,fl::,lllli I tr 3. one cc to sRI. ( 4' rwocc to sRI oil ll*ot''HA RAo Advc ;#;^" .,j" tnkidi' Kurrambheem Asifabad 5'rwo cD."0,""- -''' TUBLIC "-"tt;;;^"ffi1:ffi, hrTr^ rou+.ft;.+r^e - t-\ le&'Y\d qua C0UT) AG/PSL 1i1:=- S Bc'r ') \ 22 HIGH COURT DATED:07 tO7t2O2S ORDER GRLP.No.4571 ot 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED .* .CAg \,4* l\'