THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14322 of 2025

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking the Court to set-aside the orders dated 17.10.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2025, on the file of the learned Principal District &

Sessions Judge, Suryapet District.

2. Heard Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared through online as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a Gowshala represented by its Representative and that interim custody of animals is given to the said Goshala to meet the expenses of maintaining the said animals. Under Rule 5(4) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Magistrate has to direct that the vehicle should be held as a security by the concerned Gowshala.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in violation of the said Rule, the learned Trial Court passed orders in Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2025 dated 17.10.2025 granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein/owner of the property, which is not just and proper in the eye of law and therefore prayed to set aside the said orders.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the interim custody should not be handed over to the owner of the vehicle even if he is not an accused, but it should be given as a security to the Gowshala which is maintaining the animals herein.

6. Perused the record. The petition vide Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2025 in Crime No.183 of 2025 was allowed by the Trial Court directing the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, to order for interim custody of the cattle to the petitioner by imposing any reasonable conditions to its satisfaction. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer Rule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference.

“5. Execution of bond:- (1) The Magistrate when handing over the custody of animal to an infirmary, pinjarapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala shall determine an amount which is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incurred and anticipated to be incurred for transport, maintenance and treatment of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinary officer and shall direct the accusd and the owner to execute a bond of the determined value with sureties within three days and if the accused and owner do not execute the bond, the animal shall be forfeited to infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.

(2) The infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala having the custody of the animal may draw on from the bond on a fortnightly basis the actual reasonable cost incurred in caring for the animal from the date it received custody till the date of final disposal of the animal.

(3) The Magistrate shall call for the accused and the owner to execute additional bond with sureties once eighty percent of the initial bond amount has been exhausted as cost for caring for the animal.

(4) Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the Magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held as a security.

(5) In case of offence relating to transport of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals.

(6) In cases where a body corporate owns the animal, the Chief Executive Officer, President or highest-ranking employee of the body corporate, the body corporate and the accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of the animal.

(7) In cases where the Government owns the animal, the Head of the Department and the accused shall be jointly and severally l