The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records pertain to the oiders daled 271212025 in CRLMP NO. '121 OF 2025 in Crrme No. 69 of 2024 in P.S Choutuppal on the file of HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISRTATE AT CHOUTUPPAL and quash /set-a-side the same as abuse of the process of Law and pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ln the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the Hrgh court may be pleased to suspend the Orders daled 271212025 in CRLMP NO. 121 OF 2025 lN Crime No. 69 OF 2024 in P S Choutuppal on the file of HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISRTATE AT CHOUTUPPAL pending diSPOSAI Of the above criminal petition and pass l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to filing of the present quash petition aggrieved the orders in to suspend the by proceeding dated to the orders on 271212025 in CRLNIP.NO. 121 OF 2025 lN Crime No. 69 OF 2024 in P.S Choutuppal on the file of HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS IVAGISRTATE AT CHOUTUPPAL before this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.L.NARASItVHA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE N. TUI(ARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.69O1 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"), seeking to quash the order dated

27.O2.2O25 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, in Cr1.M.P.No.l2l of 2025 in Crime No.69 of

2. The submissions of Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing Respondent No.I-State, have been heard.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court, while allowing Crl.M.P.No.l2l of 2025 (filed under Section 497 of the BNSS), granted interim custody of the seized goods carriage HMW Tata Motors Ltd bearing Registration No.TG O5 5889. The order mandated the execution of a personal bond and furnish single suretlr for Rs.40,OO,0O0/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) and imposed Ir 2 MTR,J CrLP.No.69Ol oJ 2025 conditions restraining the respondent from alienating, altering, or destroying the vehicle, with a further directive to produce it before the Court as required

4. It is further contended that the tria-l Court's order dated 27.02.2025 ptolates Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Anima.ls) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter "the 2Ol7 Rules"). Specihcally, the learned counsel emphasized that Rule 3 mandates the Magistrate to determine bond amounts based on veterinar5r assessments covering transportation, maintenance, and treatment costs of seized animals. . Rule 4 requires consultation with a veterinary officer to ascertain custody a-rrangements during pending litigat io n . . Rule 5 prescribes standardized rates for animal care. The trial Court's decision to release the vehicle solely on a Rs.4O,OO,00O/- bond with one surety, without adhering to these procedural safeguards, constitutes a material breach of the 2O 17 Rules. In light of the alleged non-compliance with the 2O17 Rules, .the petitioner prays for setting aside the trial Court's order. 3 I!:TR,J CrLP.No.69O1 oj 2O2S

5. In rebutta_I, the learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that, the cattle linked to the case remain under custody at the designated goshala (animal shelter) and have not been released. The impugned order was appropriately tailored to the facts of the case, rendering judicial intervention unnecessary.

6. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions presented and the factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial court erred in law by failing to take into account the applicable provisions of the relevant Rules, 2017 at the time of rendering its decision.

7. Further, considering the fact that this Court, Criminal Petition Nos. 5786, T2TB, |IZZO, and l7Z4S of 2024, }:ad previously set aside the orders passed by the trial Court arrd remanded the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with the Rules, 2OlT, thrs Court hnds no reason to adopt a different view in the present case.

8. Accordingly, the present Criminal petition is allowed. The order dated 27.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.p.No.12l of 4 MTR'J CrLP.No.6901 of 2025 2025 in Crime No.69 of 2025 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, is hereby set aside' The matter is remanded to the tria-l Court for reconsideration, with a direction to pass appropriate and reasoned orders strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 20 17' Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this criminal Petition shall stand cancelled' r^?;t?x$IfiuL?I+tTl \ ,,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. l. 3 The Ju dicial lr,4agistrate of First Class at Choutuppa The Station House Officer' Police Station ChoutuPP al One CC to SRI G L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate tOPUCI Two CCs to ADDITIONAL PU BLIC PROSECUTOR' Hrgh Co urt for the State of Telangana at HYderabad[OUT] 5 Two CD CoPies GE/Ai]K {\, HIGH COURT DATED:12l0612025 ORDER CRLP.No.6901 of 2025 THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. gcr\ftA \q- ffiBr ,./.l't ! ).f f (. .\ o 26 tlJE 20[ t) I I I i I