B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the petitioner-by name Md. Balesharief, of Hyderabad, in Crime No.169 of 2014, on the file of SHO, Wyra Police Station, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District registered against K. Yadaih (A1-driver of the Eicher van AP 29 TB 9618), K. Nagaraju (A2), M. Chanti (A3) and the petitioner supra (A4), for the offences punishable under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 38 of Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6, 10, 11 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1977 r/w. Rules 49 to 56 of the rules, 1978 made there under, for illegally loaded and cruelly tied with ropes, broken their legs and against the rules and regulations and without Veterinary Doctor certificate and without medical kit, and in that condition transporting of the 29 Cows cruelly without fed with water, grass or food (therefrom in the pathetic condition and one of which even died), on 30-07-2014 at the instance of the Petitioner/A4 by K. Yadaih (A1-driver of the van belongs A4), K. Nagaraju (A2) & M. Chanti (A3) working under him, for slaughter in Kabella.

2. The contention of the petitioner (A4) in the anticipatory bail application are that, he is a respectable person with permanent residence at Hyderabad, that police of Wyra are trying for his arrest to create a confession of him, based on the concocted story in the report of de-facto complainant by implicated him with a devious intention, that his application for anticipatory bail was ended in dismissal by order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.1136/2014, that he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed in granting bail and hence to grant anticipatory bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in progress and the way in which the cows were transporting illegally even those are fit for utility as milk cattle and agricultural operations does not deserve concession of bail and in fact the offence under Section 420 IPC also applies in the facts from the record showing the ryths where from the Cows purchased in Tiruvuru area was without informing for slaughter, but by deceitful and false representations as if for re-sale in the sandy for utility as milk cattle and agricultural operations in sale and delivery of the Sacred Cows, that too at the low price and the police are investing on those lines also by examination of the ryths who sold the cattle and the petitioner is the main perpetrator of the crime and petitioner's custody is highly required in this regard to ascertain several facts in relation to it and sought for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.

4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A4, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record. Now the points for consideration are:

i. Whether the petitioner (A4) is entitled to the anticipatory bail and if so with what conditions?

ii. To what result?

5. Point-I: Among the offences punishable under Sections 420, 429 r/w. 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 38 of Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6, 10, 11 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1977 r/w. Rules 49 to 56 of the rules, 1978, a perusal of the provisions show but for Section 420 I.P.C the others are practically bailable. Before incorporating the Sections supra and other relevant provisions, it is apt to refer the importance of the victimised cows and the duty of the person in control and custody to deal with.

6. It is beyond dispute that a Cow is one of the important species for human survival, particularly its contribution as substitute for child milk where there is no breast milk of mother and even for adult milk and it is scientifically approved version of the cow milk is provider of I.Q levels of the milk consumer. It is because the DNA of the Cow was specifically construct