IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.872 of 2025 DATE: 10.02.2026 BETWEEN:

SabavathBalu and others …..petitioners/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another.

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1036 of 2025 in Crime No.145 of 2025 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution alleged accused Nos.1 to 3 had conspired to murder the deceased due to a prior dispute and, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, engaged other accused by paying Rs.25 lakhs, provided them with a Bolero vehicle and untraceable mobile phones, and executed the murder, whereas the defence denied the allegations, contended that the case was based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence, and asserted false implication without any direct proof; upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the rival submissions, the trial Court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, rejected the defence version, and accordingly convicted the accused for the offences charged. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

3. Heard Smt. K. Aruna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Smt. G.V.S.S. Sruthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court was contrary to law, illegal and improper, and that the rejection of the petition filed under Section 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of the seized 78 cattle was erroneous. She further submitted that the Magistrate ought to have granted interim custody subject to proof of ownership, as the cattle were falsely seized and the petitioners had no connection with the alleged offence. She contended that the petitioners were wholly dependent on the said cattle for their livelihood, including sale of milk and agricultural use, and that continued detention of the cattle in the gaushala was causing hardship and risk of damage. She further contended that the trial Court erred in relying solely on the judgment reported in (2010) 7 APCK 0017 in Crl.R.C.No.1181 of 2010, and that the seized cattle ought to have been released to the petitioners by imposing reasonable conditions pending trial. Therefore, she prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trail Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the revision petition was not maintainable and that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands and that the seized 78 cattle were illegally transported in gross violation of the Transport of Animals Rules, without valid permits, health certificates or fitness certificates, and far in excess of the permissible number, thereby establishing prima facie cruelty and illegality. She further submitted that the cattle were found in a starved, dehydrated and injured condition, clearly indicating cruel treatment and an attempt to transport them for slaughter and that the reliance was placed on the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Transport of Animals Rules, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, to contend that seized animals must remain in the custody of a gaushala pending trial. She also relied on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and advisories of the Animal Welfare Board of India to argue that interim custody could not be granted to the petitioners and that the learned Magistrate