1. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C-III Case No. 69 of 2015 registered under Sections 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Ranchi.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that a search was conducted by the Inspector, SPCA and he found that the two bovine animals (cows) were slaughtered and hanged; two cows and one ox were kept tied cruelly. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to page no.26 of the brief which is the certified copy of the order dated 26.08.2015 of Criminal Revision No.119/15, passed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, wherein the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has held that the cognizance order was passed mechanically by the learned Magistrate and set aside the said cognizance order and remitted back the case to the court of Magistrate to pass appropriate order. But the learned Magistrate has again taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, only the competent authority as defined under Section 2 (J) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 or veterinary officer or any person authorized in writing by them can enter a premises, inspect and conduct the search in respect of the offences under the Act. The competent authority has been defined in Section 2 (J) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 as “any officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Magistrate who may be authorized by the State Government by notification in the official gazette for the purpose of this Act.” But as the Inspector of SPCA-the informant, is not empowered to enter any premises, inspect or conduct the search under Section 10 of the Act, hence, the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of his report is not proper. It is further submitted that the allegations are false. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Addl. P.P on the other hand drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-A kept at page no.9, of the counter affidavit dated 02.05.2017 and submitted that Rule 3 of The prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001, which is a rule framed in exercise of the power conferred by Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 reads as under:-

“3. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to animals in a District:-

(1) Every State Government by notification in the official Gazette, establish, as soon as may be and in any event within six months from the date of commencement of these rules, a society for every district of the State to be the SPCA in that district. ……………………

…………………..”

5. Learned Addl. P.P further submitted by drawing attention of this Court to the notification marked Annexure B to the Counter Affidavit kept at page no.10, wherein it has been mentioned that the said notification has been notified in compliance of the provision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and whereby the earlier arrangements of the Inspectors of doing the work of inspection and prosecution under direct supervision if the SP/DSP was allowed to be continued for effective implementation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.

6. By relying upon the order dated 19.03.2013 of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1552/12, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since in that case even though the Inspector SPCA conducted the search und