The High Court · 2025

'1- The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad 2. Sabhavath Vijay Kuymar, S/o.sabhavalh Sukya, Age.34 yrs,Occ. business, R/o. H.No. 1 8-1 -51 4lcl21 I 1 I 1 I A, Naseeb Nagar, Bandlaguda, Falakuma,Hyderabad RespondenUPetitioner/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNS$ praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Qriminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertairl to the orders dated 3-03-2025 in CRLMP.NO. 9 OF 2025 IN Crime.No. 1 OF 2024 in C.C.No. 73 ot 2024 P.S. Choutuppal on the file of Judicial First Class Magisrtate at Choutuppal and quash /set-a-side the same as abuse of the proces$ of Law l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.d stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cr be pleased to suspend the orders dated 3-0f Crime.No. 1 OF 2025 in C.C.No. 73 ol 2Q Judicial First Class Magisrtate at Choutuppal abuse of the process of law praying that in the circumstances iminal Petition, the High Court may -2025 in CRLMP.NO. I OF 2025 lN 25 P.S. Choutuppal on the file of and quash / set-a-side the same as This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingl the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimirral Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G L NARASIMHA RACI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appearec for the Respondent No.2, The Court made thr: following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUFTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6972 of 2O2S ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fhled under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"), seeking to quash the order dated O3.O3.2O25 passed by the Judi ial First Class Magistrate, d Choutuppal, in Crl.M.P.No.O ot )OZS in C.C.No.73 of 2024 (arising from Crime No.1 of 2024f

2. The submissions of Sri G.I1. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, And Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additiopal Public Prosecutor representing Respondent No.l-S!ate, have been heard.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court, while allowing Crl.M.f.No.9 of 2025 (filed under Section 497 of the BNSS), granled interim custody of the seized goods carriage HM bearing Registration No.TG 12 T OO42. The order mapdated the execution of a personal bond for Rs.10,00,OOO/i (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and imposed conditions restraitpi ng the respondent from *- I I 2 AITR,J CrLP.No.6972 oJ 2025 alienating, altering, or destroying the vehicle, with a further directive to produce it before the Court as reqLrired.

4. It is further contended that the tria-1 Court's order dated O3.03 .2025 vtolates Rules 3, 4, atd 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and M aintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2O17 (hereinafter "the 2077 Rules'). Specifrcally, the learned counsel emphasized that: . Rule 3 mandates the Magistrate to dertermine bond amou nts based on veterinar5r assessrn ents covering tralsportation, maintenance, and treatment costs of seize<l animals. . Rule 4 requires consultation with a veterinary officer to as certain custody arrangements drlring pending litigar-ion. . Rule 5 prescribes standardized rates for animal care. The trial Court's decision to release the vehicle solely on a Rs. 1O,00,000/ bond, without adfrering to these proce dural safeguards, constitutes a rr,aterial breach of tht:2017 Rules. In light of ,he alleged non-compliance with the 2017 Rules, the petitiorrer prays for setting aside the trial Court's order. .. "1t: 3 IITN,J C|LP.No.6972 of 2O2s

5. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, the cattle linke{ to the case remain under custody at the designated goshala (alimal shelter) and have not been released. The impugned order was appropriately tailored to the facts of the case, rendering judicial intervention r.rnnecessary.

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 I $ failing to take into account the applicable provisions of the I I relevant Rules, 2017 at the time of rendering its decision

7. Further, considering the fact that this Court, 1n Criminal Petition Nos. 5786, 7278, ll77o, and' 11745 of 2024, h.ad previously set aside the orders passed by the trial Court and remanded the matters for fresh consideration in accordalce with the Rules, 2Ol7 , this Court finds no reason to adopt a different view in the present case.

8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.O9 of / I IITR,J C|LP.No-6972 oJ 2025 r-l 2025 in C.rl.No.73 of 2024 arising out of Crime No 1 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for reconsideration, with a dirt:ction to pass appropriate ald reasoned orders strictly ir.r accordalce with the provisions of the Rules, 2O 17. Misce .laneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand cancelled. SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN R To, //TRUE COPY// /$s t'f \l 1. The Judicial l,/agistrate of First Class at Choutuppal. 2. The Station Flouse Officer, Choutuppal police Siition, Rahcakonda. 3. One CC to Sli.l c L NARASIA/HA RAO, Advocate [Opljc] 4. Two CCs to tre Public Prosecutor, High Court of T-elangana at Hyderabad 5. Two CD Copies v SECTION OFFICER SIU/gh v,(, HIGH COUR DATED: 12l0t0l2025 ORDER CRLP.No.69',72 ot 2025 r 1.f Sir,, 1i i; 2 5 AtlC 206 -: _l i) I ' J'. \,, \. ALLOWING'THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0