THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6901 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 27.02.2025 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, in Crl.M.P.No.121 of 2025 in Crime No.69 of

2025.

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.1–State, have been heard.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court, while allowing Crl.M.P.No.121 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 05 5889. The order mandated the execution of a personal bond and furnish single surety for Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) and imposed 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 trial Court’s order dated 27.02.2025 violates Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter “the 2017 Rules”). Specifically, the learned counsel emphasized that:

• Rule 3 mandates the Magistrate to determine bond amounts based on veterinary assessments covering transportation, maintenance, and treatment costs of seized animals.

• Rule 4 requires consultation with a veterinary officer to ascertain custody arrangements during pending litigation.

• Rule 5 prescribes standardized rates for animal care.

The trial Court’s decision to release the vehicle solely on a Rs.40,00,000/- bond with one surety, without adhering to these procedural safeguards, constitutes a material breach of the 2017 Rules.

In light of the alleged non-compliance with the 2017 Rules, the petitioner prays for setting aside the trial Court’s order.

5. In rebuttal, 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, in Criminal Petition Nos. 5786, 7278, 11770, and 11745 of 2024, had previously set aside the orders passed by the trial Court and remanded the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with the Rules, 2017, 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 27.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.121 of

2025 in Crime No.69 of 2025 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for reconsideration, with a direction to pass appropriate and reasoned orders strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2017.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand cancelled.

_____________________

N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 12.06.2025.

KRL

230 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6901 of 2025 Dt.12.06.2025 KRL