Allowed

Mohammed Balesharief v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC26 Sept 2014CRLP/11193/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alleged cruel transportation of cows for slaughter and cheating of cattle sellers led to conditional anticipatory bail. The court required surrender, sureties, reporting and restrictions on movement and witness contact. It also directed communication to the State Governments for stronger animal-protection penalties and implementation measures.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within fifteen days, bond and two sureties, reporting, travel restrictions and non-interference with witnesses.

Mohammed Balesharief Vs the State of A.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11193 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

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, 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.

¶4

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 defacto 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.

¶5

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

¶6

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.

¶7

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:

¶8

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

¶9

ii). To what result?

¶10

5 ) POINT-I: Among the offences punishable under Sections 420, 429 r/w. 109 of Indian Penal Code, 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 imporance of the victimised cows and the duty of the person in control and custody to deal with.

¶11

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

¶12

the milk consumer. It is because the DNA of the Cow was specifically constructed to be harmonious with mammalian human DNA, so it can be clearly understood that Cow DNA was designed so human could benefit from Cows’ products being milk, cheese, butter, cream and yoghurt. Even Cow milk, curd, ghee, urine & dung, are part of PANCHAGAVYA with all scientific, medicinal and mythological importance to cure severe chronic deceases even. Apart from it, its contribution to the rural agriculturist is inestimable. Thus, it is the duty of everyone in the society to protect apart from duty to prevent any ill-treatment to it and the defacto-complainant`s endeavor is worthy to be applauded in this regard, also for the following:

¶13

7) Dispensation of justice is being guided by the Rule Fiat Justitia ruat coelum to mean let justice be done though heavens should fall.

¶14

7(i) From Mahabharata, the slogans are Dharmo Rakshathi Rakshithaha, and Dharme Sarvam Prathisthitham; that otherwise Lord will prevent Adharma and protect Dharma from the adage-Dharmasamsthapanardhaya; Sambhavaami Yugei-Yugei; It was Lord Krishna when went to Kouravas as an ambassador of Pandavas, for their unheeding for Justice even to give five villages, Krishna told Bheeshma and Drona etc., that-where there is a danger to Dharma and even persons like them capable of resisting Adharma instead of doing so, remained as silent spectators feeling that they were not committing any Adharma in not preventing Adharma of Kouravas, it had definitely even harm them; as a lesson to realize of it no way harm Dharma.

¶15

7(ii) The Sloka reads that:

¶16

Saarapu-dharmamun Vimala-satyamu Papamucheta-bonkuche Paaramu-bondaleka chedabaarinadiana- yavastha Dakshulevvara-lupeksha setureni, Adi-vaarala-chetu-agu-gaani Dharma-a-vistharakamayyu Satya-subha-daayaka-mayyun diavamu-undedin”.

¶17

7 (iii) The same is the famous saying of Martin Luther King that the

¶18

generation will have to weep not for the evil deeds of bad people but for the appealing silence of good people.

¶19

7 (iv) In Rigveda X 87.16 it speaks-One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal and deprives others from milk by slaughtering Cows; if such a friend does not desist, then even cut off their heads by your powers, Oh King. Needless to say the legislative importance to prevent cow sloughter by making legislation and in its practical implementation is emphasisng by this Sloka.

¶20

7 (v) Srimad Bhagavata, at canto-11, Chapter-5, verse-14 says-those who are ignorant of the absolute truth and believe they are virtuous although wicked and arrogant, who kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment are vevoured by those very same animals in their next birth.

¶21

7 (vi) Even in the Sage Mahabharatha known as Panchama Veda, in Anusasana Prava by Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa (Maharshi Vyasa) it was propounded:

¶22

“The Surabhi cow descended from the spiritual worlds and manifested herself in the heavenly spheres from the aroma of celestial nectar for the benefit of all created beings. The direct descendants of the Surabhi cows are the sacred cows from the continent India which are uniquely distinguished the same as the Surabhi by the beautiful hump on their backs and the wonderfully soft folds of skin under their necks. Since all cows in existence in the world today are factual descendants of the sacred cows of India they are all holy as well and should always belovingly cared for and protected with the highest esteem and greatest respect. One should never cause harm to cows in any way even in a dream and one should never ever even think of eating the flesh of cows as there is no action more sinful in all of creation then cow killing.”

¶23

7 (vii) The Mythology of India, the Bharat; speaks –Mother, Father, Guru(teacher-Guide), a Cow and a saint-Yogi all should never be killed.

¶24

7 (viii) Even Bible-chapter 66 verse 3 of ISIAIH speaks- He that killeth an OX is as if he slit a dogs neck, he that offereth it is as an oblation is as if he offered swines blood, he that burneth it is incense as if blessed an idol. Yet, they have chosen their way and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

¶25

7 (ix) Even the Quranic Tenets on the Islamic Morals and Practices speak on Humane Treatment of Animals. It speaks the compassion and mercy of Islam not only encompasses humanity, but also extends to all creatures in the world. The Quran at 16:5-8 even speaks that “And the cattle, He has created them for you. You have in them warm clothing and (other) advantages, and of them you eat. And therein is beauty for you, when you drive them back (home) and when you send them out (to pasture). And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with great distress to yourselves. Surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful. And (He made) horses and mules and assess that you might ride upon them and as an ornament. And he creates what you know not” Islam required kindness to animals and cruelty to them a sufficient reason for a person to be thrown into the Fire. Islam further requires that pets and farm animals be provided with proper food, water, and a place to live and an animal should not be beaten or tortured. The Holy Prophet used to say “whoever is kind to the creatures of God, is kind to himself” (Wisdom of Prophet Mohammad; Muhammad Amin; The lion Press, Lahore, Pakistan; 1945). If animals have been subjected to cruelties in their breeding, transport, slaughter, or in their general welfare, meat from them is considered impure and unlawful to eat (Haram).

¶26

7 (x) As early as 1500-600 BC in Isha-Upanishad, it is professed as follows: “The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. No creature is superior to any other. Human beings should not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over the rights and privileges of other species.”

¶27

7 (xi) The Isha-Upanishad-speaks the moral duty of every human being in the society, not only not to encroach over the rights and privileges of other human beings but even other species and no one can abdicate this duty as part of justice to all.

¶28

8) Needless to say, Law as it is may fall short of law as it ought to be for doing complete justice. The gap between the two may be described as the field covered by morality. It is to say where the legislation requires to fill the gaps of amending the insufficient penal provisions with stringent provisions.

¶29

8 (i) ABRAHAM LINCOLN once quoted “Law floats on a sea of ethics, in a civilized society. Thus, both ethics and law are essential for a Judge”. It evokes a dual responsibility on every Judge not only to be well versed with law and case facts in its application, but also moral rectitude and disciplined life.

¶30

8 (ii) The Chinese Sage MENCIUS says the hope of a common man as “I desire life. I also desire justice. But if I cannot have both, I shall have to let life go and take justice.”

¶31

8 (iii) We cannot forget the comment of GUNNER MYRDAL–an Eminent Economist that “India is a soft State – by this, the Law makers, the law breakers and the law keepers were not interested in a lawful society. Lawlessness works to their advantage”.

¶32

8 (iv) Justice AHARON BARAK of Israeli Supreme Court in his book “A Judge of Judging” expressed that “There can be no democracy and no civilized society without an effective Justice Administration System”. It is emphasising that the uncivilized acts to be condemned as part of the Justice Administration for survival of Democracy.

¶33

9) The apex court expressions in Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde V. State of Maharashtra state^[1] , and Satya Brata Biswal V. Kalyan Kumar Kisku^[2] , by referring to several expressions and famous quotes

¶34

against the greedy and unworthy man as follows: -

¶35

“Respect for law is one of the cardinal principles for an effective operation of the Constitution, law and the popular Government. The faith of the people is the source and succour to invigorate justice intertwined with the efficacy of law. The principle of justice is ingrained in our conscience and though ours is a nascent democracy which has now taken deep roots in our ethos of adjudication-be it judicial, quasi judicial or administrative as hallmark, the faith of the people in the efficacy of these processes would be disillusioned, if one is permitted to abuse its process and allowed to go scoot free.”

¶36

10) In Jennison Vs Baker – 1972(1) All.E.R 997 it was held “The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection loose hope”.

¶37

10 (i) Justice BRENNAN in his reference to law and justice quoted that “nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice-either from imperfect law or in its improper application.”

¶38

10 (ii) It is thus not only providing a lenient penal consequence unpinching to the crime perpetrator require to rectify by suitable amendment with stringent penal consequences, but also to duly enforce the law more particularly in respect of those other than human species who cannot fight and who cannot self-defend against the defiant attitude of a human being, in order to protect those species who not able to fight for their fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

¶39

10 (iii) It is thus the time to amend the law with stringent penal consequences and with strict enforcement in Prevention of Cruelty against Animals by amending the Act,1960 and also in respect of Prohibition of Cow Slaughter.

¶40

10 (iv) As the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960- (PCA Act)-no way provide sufficient punishment for those ill-treating the animals and equally the Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act,1977 r/w. Rules 49 to 56 of the rules,1978, it is necessary to amend the laws by

¶41

the legislature of the State even to subserve the ends of justice and to protect the species from human ill-treatment and killing.

¶42

10 (v) Section 3 imposes duties on the persons having charge of animals in saying - It shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the wellbeing of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. Over and above, Section 11(1), clauses (b) to (o) also confer various duties and obligations, generally and specifically, on the persons in charge of or care of animals which, in turn, confer corresponding rights on animals, which, if violated, are punishable under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the PCA Act.

¶43

10 (vi) Section 11. Treating animals cruelty.- (1) If any person-

¶44

(a) Beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or (b) xxx xxx xxx

¶45

(c) xxx xxx xxx

¶46

(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any anomal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

¶47

(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length or breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

¶48

(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonable heavy chain or cord; or (g) xxx xxx xxx

¶49

(h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or (i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or j) xxx xxx xxx

¶50

(k) offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or

¶51

(l) mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or; m) xxx xxx xxx n) xxx xxx xxx o) xxx xxx xxx

¶52

He shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may

¶53

extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three months, or with both.

¶54

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence:

¶55

Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

¶56

(3) xxx xxx xxx ”

¶57

10 (vii) Section 26 of the Act which deals with offences even provides a maximum imprisonment of Three months or fine of Rs.500/- or both;

¶58

11) No doubt Section 29 of the Act provides that if the owner of any animal is found guilty of the offence under this Act, the Court, upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment, make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to the Government and may, further, make such order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances. No such order shall be made unless it is shown by the evidence as to a previous conviction under the Act or as to the character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal that the animal, if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty. Further, the Court may also order that a person convicted of an offence under the Act shall, either permanently or during such period as is fixed by the order, the prohibited from having the custody of any animal of any kind whatsoever, or, as the Court thinks fit, of any animal of any kind or species specified in the order.

¶59

12) Though there is a presumption of guilt under Section 30 of the Act against the person in possession and offences are cognizable and there are powers for search and seizure and provision for treatment and care of animal, there is no presumption of conscious possession against the owner with mens rea, thereby it is required to be incorporated as

¶60

Section 30-A of the Act by necessary amendment to the effect that a presumption shall be made against the owner of conscious and constructive possession and mens rea with burden on him to rebut the presumption. Above punishment provided under Section 11(1) and 26 of the P.C.A Act is utterly low and it requires a stringent punishment to be provided amending the Law so far as the provisions of punishment and fine concerned.

¶61

13) Even coming to the A.P. Prohibition of Cow Sloughter and Animal Preservation Act (11 of 1977) which though received the assent of the President of India on 30.04.1977 and notified in the Gazette on 01.05.1977, given retrospective effect with effect from 19.12.1976; provides for the Prohibition of the Sloughter of Cows, calves of cows and calves of she=buffaloes and for preservation of certain other animals suitable for milch, breeding, dought or agricultural purposes in the State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters therewith, though Section 4 requires appointment of a Competent Authority by notification, the authority may consist person or body of persons, it is practically not brought to execution by constitution of the committees, where it is requried N.G.Os and the Police and Executive for implementation of prohibtiion of cow sloughter under Section 5 and also prohibition of sloughter of animals without certification from competent authority under Section 6, apart from establishment of the institutions for taking care of cows or other animals as specifically provided under Section 17 of the Act. No doubt the offences are cognizable as per Section 11 and abetement and attempt also punishable under Section 12. Even the penal consequences provided under Section 10 of the Act of maximum six months or with fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both is also utterly low and it requires a stringent punishment to be provided amending the Law so far as the provisions of punishment and fine concerned.

¶62

14) The other relevant provisions required refer in this context are Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001 made under Section 38 of the P.C.A. Act, 1960 by the Central Government which speak the Transport of Animals on Foot for Five

¶63

kilometers or more shall be healthy and in good condition for such a transport with a certificate of veterinary doctor of its fit condition and not suffering from any infictituous, contagious or paracetic deceases and that too without vaccination, new born animals of which the naval has not completely healed, deceased, blind, amaciated, lame, fatigued or having given birth during preceeding 72 hours or likely to give birth during transport shall not be transported on foot and also required Veterinary first aid equipment to be accompanied with such animals while transported, with certification of fitness or veterinary doctor, besides the owner of the animal shall make watering arrangements in route during transport of such animals, also sufficient food and fodder that shall be made available by the owner for the animals during their transport. IT also provides prohibition of use of a whip, a stick in order to force the animal to walk upto hasten the face of their walk nor applying chillies or other substance to any part of the body of animal, for this purpose during transport. Where it is required to tie with a rope, it must be with suitable cushioning such as cloth around its leggs and shall not be tied by its nose, all legs or any other part of the body except by its neck and if more than one animal is tied adjacent to one another by a single rope during their transport on foot, the space between the two shall be minimum two feet and the animals shall be on similar physical condition and strengh and no more than two animals shall be tied adjacent to each other by a single rope and not even even afrter sunset and before sunrise on foot. Needless to say Rules 46 to 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 under the P.C.A.Act, 1960 cover transport of cattle by rail, the trnasport of cattle covered by Road on vehicles concerned the said Rules particularly Rule 49 Tables-I & II speak the space allowance required per cattle and also in transport by commonly sized road vehicles which provide where the vehicle size floor area is 16.56 is 1 to 2 Square mete space depending upon the weight of the animal from 200 to 400 kgs shall be maintained for each cattle and in such sized vehicle the maximum is 8 to 16 and if the size is 12.88 floor area between 6 to 12, if 7.9 Square area

¶64

between 4 to 9 and 5.5 floor area between 2 to 5. In fact thers is no provision for taking more than 16 cattle in any road transport vehicle from the above.

¶65

15) Court can take judicial notice of the facts under Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act that nowadays the said provision not observing and the cattle are not taking with specially provided cave/cages arranged vehicles with the minimum space required from cattle to cattle but by dumping the cattle inside the floor area so cranckily unmindful of their misery, pain and pity and the persons concerned with implementation of the law are turning a close eye or a deaf ear. It is in this context to say their appealing silence is causing more harm to the cattle in particular the Cows and Ox and Calves among other sensitive animals in the hands of the perpetrators of the crime for no action against them even taking on road even in broad day light. It is in that context the defactocomplainant’s endeavour requires applauding at the cost of repetition. A s Prevention of Cruelty to animals trace their legislative power in schedule 7, List III, Entry 17 of the Constitution of India – since Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India enables the Centre as well as the State to make law on the subject, it is the need to amend the law referred supra even by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to consider for amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to incorporate a presumption of conscious and constructive possession against the owner with mens rea, thereby it is required to be incorporated as Section 30-A of the Act by necessary amendment to the effect that a presumption shall be made against the owner of conscious and constructive possession and mens rea with burden on him to rebut the presumption. Further as the punishment provided under Section 11(1) and 26 of the P.C.A Act is utterly low and it requires a stringent punishment to be provided (atleast like in Section 429 I.P.C which provides with punishment of maximum five years and with fine) amending the Law so far as the provisions of punishment and fine concerned, suitably and by making as non-bailable offence (with ascent of the President of India for prevalence over the

¶66

existing provisions of the Central Legislation). Equally, in Section 10 of the A.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act (11 of 1977) as the maximum imprisonment of six months or with fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both is also utterly low and it requires a stringent punishment to be provided amending the Law so far as the provisions of punishment and fine concerned suitably (atleast like in Section 429 I.P.C which provides with punishment of maximum five years and with fine) and by making it non-bailable offence (with ascent of the President of India for prevalence over the existing provisions of the Central Legislation). Equally by amending Section 429 I.P.C which though provided with maximum five years punishment is only lying as a bailable offence by amending the same in the Chapter-XVII (offences against property) Schedule-I of Criminal Procedure Code at Column No.4 as non-bailable offence. It is needless to say the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (1 of 1956) Section 9 made the offences there under non-bailable with non-obstante clause which reads “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, an offence punishable under Sub-section(1) of Section 8 shall be cognizable and non-bailable. It is further in strict implementation of the A.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act (11 of 1977) provisions in relation to appointment of a Competent Authority by notification under Section 4 and establishment of the institutions for taking care of cows or other animals as specifically provided under Sections 6 & 17 of the Act.

¶67

16) It is also in this context relevant to refer the recent expression of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A. Nagaraja & Ors^[3] . - though it is in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullockcart races etc., generally while dealing with an issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Constitution(Articles 51A-g &21), laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology, with particular reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short ‘the PCA Act’), the Tamil Nadu

¶68

Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for short “TNRJ Act”) and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act; observed the Jallikattu inherently violate the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly, Section 3, Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) and Section 22 of the PCA Act, from para 9 onwards that:

¶69

17) Under section 11(1)(a) any act which inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering on an animal is prohibited unless it is specifically permitted under any of the provisions of PCA Act or the rules made thereunder and it is an offence with penal consequences. Studies indicate that rough or abusive handling of Bulls compromises welfare and for increasing Bulls fear, often, they are pushed, hit, prodded, abused, causing mental as well as physical harm. An injury involving muscles, bones, nerves and blood vessels causes an animal tremendous pain. A complete fracture of a lower joint in large animals takes time to heal and leads to a deformation of the leg that leaves the animal unfit for any kind of work. Bulls also suffer from chronic pain as well as mental trauma brought on by the injury and the handlers’ and bull tamers’ cruel treatment. Bulls were packed so tightly into narrow waiting corridors that they were unable to take a step forwards or backwards. Forced to stand for more than eight hours in line at the waiting area for a health examination and in the vadi vassal, bulls had no protection from the blistering sun and the crowds of people, who shouted and hooted at them, harassed them and frightened them. Bull owners start lining up the night before the jallikattu event, and they are given serial numbers. Some were in line until the events ended at 2 pm the next day. Bulls were denied shade and were not allowed to lie down and rest. This causes exhaustion and extreme distress and discomfort. This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(f), which prohibits trying an animal for an unreasonable time with an unreasonably short rope. Section 11(1)(d), which prohibits conveying any animal in such a manner or position as to cause unnecessary pain or suffering.

¶70

Bulls not offered food, water or shelter from 8 am, when they were forced to line up, until the jallikattu events ended at 2.30pm. Though concrete water troughs were available at the registration area and collection yards, none of the animals were offered water. Several bulls became recumbent and were unable to stand up because of dehydration and exhaustion. Many people kicked, beat and bit the bulls in order to force them back onto their feet. No intake of food and water and the absence of shade lead to dehydration and exhaustion. This often results in injuries or death. This is a violation of section 11(1)(a) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering, and section 11(1)(h), which states that failing to provide animals with sufficient food, drink or shelter is an act of cruelty. Bulls are prey animals. According to animal behavioural studies, bulls adopt a flight or fight response when they feel frightened or threatened. Physical abuse is not the only kind of injury that is illegal and hurtful. Mental abuse is also amongst the worst kind of abuse as it leaves a lifelong mark on the mind. It is a known fact that victims of accident, crime or disasters recover from their physical injuries in certain time but mental injuries remain etched for decades, play havoc in day to day life. Animals, irrespective of the fact whether they can express it or not, in this particular case were seen going through the same shock and terror as a person goes into in a hostage situation. Constant fear of death and continuous torture.

¶71

18) The PCA Act was enacted even before the introduction of Part IV-A dealing with the fundamental duties, by the Constitutional 47^th Amendment Act, 1956. Earlier, the then British in India enacted the Prevention of Cruelty Act,1890 for the human beings to reap maximum gains by exploiting them with coercive methods with an idea that the very existence of the animals is for the benefit of the human beings. During the course of administering the above mentioned Act, many deficiencies were noticed by the Government of India and a Committee was constituted to investigate and suggest measures for prevention of cruelty

¶72

to animals. Following that, a Bill was introduced in the Parliament and, ultimately, the PCA Act, 1960 was enacted so as to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend the law relating to prevention of cruelty to animals.

¶73

1 9 ) JUDICIAL EVALUATION: PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite law that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm. Court also should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices. Court has got the duty that, in every case, where ingenuity is expanded to avoid welfare legislations, to get behind the smoke-screen and discover the true state of affairs. Court can go behind the form and see the substance of the devise for which it has to pierce the veil and examine whether the guidelines or the regulations are framed so as to achieve some other purpose than the welfare of the animals. Regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, Court should not hesitate to strike them down so as to achieve the ultimate object and purpose of the welfare legislation. Court has also a duty under the doctrine of parents’ patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings. The PCA Act, as already indicated, was enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or cruelty on animals. Section 3 of the Act deals with duties of persons having charge of animals, which is mandatory in nature and hence confer corresponding rights on animals. Rights so conferred on animals are thus the antithesis of a duty and if those rights are violated, law will enforce those rights with legal sanction.

¶74

20) It was observed referring to the earlier expression in Lilavati Bai [4] Vs State of Bombay that pain and suffering are biological traits. Pain,

¶75

in particular, informs an animal which specific stimuli, it needs to avoid and an animal has pain receptors and a memory that allows it to remember what caused the pain.

¶76

21) Professor of Animal Welfare, D.M.Broom of University of Cambridge in his articles appearing in Chapter fourteen of the Book “Animal Welfare and the Law” Cambridge University Press (1989) says: “Behavioural responses to pain vary greatly from one species to another, but it is reasonable to suppose that the pain felt by all of these animals is similar to that felt by man”.

¶77

2 2 ) Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, in their work on “Animals in Translation” say: “The single worst thing you can do to an animal emotionally is to make it feel afraid. Fear is so bad for animals I think it is worse than pain. I always get surprised looks when I say this. If you gave most people a choice between intense pain and intense fear, they’d probably pick fear.”

¶78

23) It was quoted with approval the earlier expression in N. Adithayan v.Thravancore Dewaswom Board and Others^[5] , while examining the scope of Articles 25(1), 2(a), 26(b), 17, 14 and 21, that:“18.....No usage which is found to be pernicious and considered to be in derogation of the law of the land or opposed to public policy or social decency can be accepted or upheld by courts in the country.

¶79

24) It was observed at para-49 that based on eco-centric principles, rights of animals have been recognized in various countries. Protection of animals has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Germany by way of an amendment in 2002 when the words “and the animals” were added to the constitutional clauses that obliges ‘state’ to respect ‘animal dignity’. Therefore, the dignity of the animals is constitutionally recognised in that country. German Animal Welfare Law, especially Article 3 provides farreaching protections to animals including inter alia from animals fight and other activities which may result in the pain, suffering and harm for the animals. Countries like Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia have enacted

¶80

legislations to include animal welfare in their national Constitutions so as to balance the animal owners’ fundamental rights to property and the animals’ interest in freedom from unnecessary suffering or pain, damage and fear.

¶81

25) It was observed at para-58 that Article 51A(h) of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Particular emphasis has been made to the expression “humanism” which has a number of meanings, but increasingly designates as an inclusive sensibility for our species. Humanism also means, understand benevolence, compassion, mercy etc. Citizens should, therefore, develop a spirit of compassion and humanism which is reflected in the Preamble of PCA Act as well as in Sections 3 and 11 of the Act. To look after the welfare and well-being of the animals and the duty to prevent the infliction of pain or suffering on animals highlights the principles of humanism in Article 51A(h). Both Articles 51A(g) and (h) have to be read into the PCA Act, especially into Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and be applied and enforced. Further, animals like Cows, Bulls etc. are all freely used for farming, transporting loads etc., that too, for the benefit of human beings, thereby subjecting them to some pain and suffering which is also unavoidable, but permitted by the Rules framed under the PCA Act.

¶82

26) It was observed at para-62 that every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and

¶83

dignity. Animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed right under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed there under, especially when they are domesticated. Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-rider, over-loading is also a right recognized by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act. Animals have also a right against the human beings not to be tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans. Punishment prescribed in the Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, hence being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.

¶84

27) In fact in an expression of the Rajasthan High Court in Shafiq Mohd V. State of Rajasthan^[6] by referring to Section 3/8 of the Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration of Export) Act (23 of 1995) held for the Cow beating and its eventual death therefrom, it is a non-bailable offence under Section 439 Cr.P.C and by Judgment dated 25.02.2010 held that even the accused in judicial custody since 29.12.2009 in pursuance of the offence committed against the sacred Cow is not entitled to the concession of bail.

¶85

28) From the penal provisions supra, it is apt to state the legal position regarding grant or refusal of bail keeping in mind the dual responsibility of the Court on the importance of individual's personal

¶86

liberty and also the importance of the larger interest of the society, in exercise of judicial description for grant or refusal from facts and circumstances, it is needful to refer the parameters that require consideration:

¶87

29) (i). As per the Apex Court’s expression in Sunil F. Shaw Vs Union of India-2000 [3] SCC 409, the meaning of bail even as per Cr.P.C. is to release the accused from internment though Court, would still retain constructive control over him through the sureties through the conditions of the bond given by the accused and sureties.

¶88

29 (ii). In the case of bailable offences, the Court shall release on bail U/Section.436 Cr.P.C, and in the case of non-bailable offences, the Court may release on bail, subject to the conditions and raiders laid down u/Section.437 Cr.P.C, in exercise of the discretion to grant or not to grant bail; and Section.44 Cr.P.C, speaks the powers of the Magistrate to arrest or direct arrest of any person in his presence including by issuing of a warrant, if he is competent for his arrest. Further, Court of Sessions or High Court U/Section.439 Cr.P.C, with in its judicial discretion grant regular bail in the case of non-bailable offences and similarly U/Section.438 Cr.P.C, the pre-arrest bail in favour of the accused involved in a non bailable offence provided there are exceptional circumstances provided in the Section 438(1) Cr.P.C., for release in the event of arrest. As observed in Balchand Jain Vs. State of M.P^[7] the expression anticipatory bail' is a misnomer inasmuch as it is not as if bail is presently granted by the Court in anticipation of arrest. When a competent court grants anticipatory bail', it makes an order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail. There is no question of release on bail unless a person is arrested and, therefore, it is only on arrest that the order granting anticipatory bail becomes operative.

¶89

30 (iii). To have a glimpse it is apt to reproduce Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads:

¶90

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest-

¶91

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-

¶92

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶93

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶94

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1-A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.

¶95

(1-B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.

¶96

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including -

¶97

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶98

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶99

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-

¶100

section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

¶101

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court U/Sub-section (1)."

¶102

30) From the above, Sub-section (1) of Section 438 enacts that when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or to the Court of Session for a direction that in the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail, and the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail. Subsection (2) empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to impose conditions enumerated therein, which include conditions laid down in Section 437 Cr.P.C. Sub- section (3) states that if such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, he shall be released on bail. Thus, the criteria for consideration of regular bail in a non bailable offence are different to anticipatory bail.

¶103

31) On this aspect, the Constitution Bench i n Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab^[8] stated thus: The observations made in Balchand Jain regarding the nature of the power conferred by Section 438 and regarding the question whether the conditions mentioned in Section 437 should be read into Section 438 cannot therefore be treated as concluding the points which arise directly for our consideration. We agree, with respect, that the power conferred by Section 438 is of an extraordinary character in the sense indicated above, namely, that it is not ordinarily resorted to like the power conferred by Sections 437 and 439. We also agree that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised with due care and circumspection but beyond that, it is not

¶104

possible to agree with the observations made in Balchand Jain in an altogether different context on an altogether different point". (Emphasis Supplied). In this context, it is important to note the 9 guidelines as laid down by the constitution bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), which the Courts are required to keep in mind while dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail are:

¶105

31(i) Though the power conferred under Section 438 of the Code can be described as of an extraordinary character, but this does not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional cases only because it is of an extraordinary character. Nonetheless, the discretion under the Section has to be exercised with due care and circumspection depending on circumstances justifying its exercise.

¶106

31 (ii) Before power under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code is exercised, the Court must be satisfied that the applicant invoking the provision has reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested for a non-bailable offence and that belief must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere “fear” is not belief, for which reason, it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a nonbailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively. Specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the Court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred by the Section.

¶107

31 (iii) The observations made in Backhand Jain’s case (AIR 1976 SC), regarding the nature of the power conferred by Section 438 and regarding the question whether the conditions mentioned in Section 437 should be read into Section 438 cannot be treated as conclusive on

¶108

the point. There is no warrant for reading into Section 438, the conditions subject to which bail can be granted under Section 437(1) of the Code and therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be refused in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided for is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal.

¶109

31 (iv) No blanket order of bail should be passed and the Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or the offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. While granting relief under Section 438(1) of the Code, appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One such condition can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the recovery. Otherwise, such an order can become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed.

¶110

31 (v) The filing of First Information Report (FIR) is not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an FIR is not yet filed.

¶111

31 (vi) An anticipatory bail can be granted even after an FIR is filed so long as the applicant has not been arrested.

¶112

31 (vii) The provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. After arrest, the accused must seek his remedy under Section 437 or Section 439 of the Code, if he wants to be released on bail in respect of the offence or offences for which he is arrested.

¶113

31 (viii) An interim bail order can be passed under Section 438 of the Code without notice to the Public Prosecutor but notice should be issued to the Public Prosecutor or to the Government advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of respective contentions of the parties. The ad-interim order too must conform to the requirements of the Section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage.

¶114

31 (ix) Though it is not necessary that the operation of an order passed under Section 438(1) of the Code be limited in point of time but the Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period until after the filing of FIR in respect of the matter covered by the order. The applicant may, in such cases, be directed to obtain an order of bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonable short period after the filing of the FIR.

¶115

32) In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of

¶116

Maharashtra^[9] , it was held that - The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty. Just as the Liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important. The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-vis personal liberty. The gravity of charge and exact role of

¶117

the accused must be properly comprehended. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. The conditions suggested while granting bail as illustrative and not

¶118

exhaustive to include:

¶119

1) Direct the accused to join investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested.

¶120

2) Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as, the title deeds of properties or the Fixed Deposit Receipts/Share Certificates of the accused.

¶121

3) Direct the accused to execute bonds;

¶122

4) The accused may be directed to furnish sureties of number of persons which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case.

¶123

5) The accused be directed to furnish undertaking that he would not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering of evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be avoided.

¶124

6 ) Bank accounts be frozen for small duration during investigation.

¶125

33) From the above, coming to the facts referred supra, there is basis in the submission by the learned Public prosecutor in saying Section 420 IPC applies in the factual matrix against the Petitioner(A4) to say his involvement in the non-bailable offence, though other penal provisions supra constitute bailable offences and but for that, the application won`t lie for anticipatory bail. Thus, from the above, as part of duty of the Court to balance with propensity of the crime, the personnel liberty of the Petitioner (A4), anticipatory bail can be granted.

¶126

3 4 ) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the following

¶127

conditions:

¶128

[1] The Petitioner shall surrender with in fifteen days from today before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, concerned and execute a self-bond for Rs.25,000/-[Rupees twenty five thousand only] with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, for taking to custody and enlarge. The bond to be obtained is not only to appear before the court pending investigation and after filing of final report in the form of charge sheet or the like for enquiry or pre committal enquiry before said Court, but also thereafter on committal before the Court of Sessions or by virtue of any transfer of proceedings for want of jurisdiction or otherwise before any other Court and even after trial before such Court to appear before revisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision-PreLegal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur vs State of Delhi 1982[2]APLJ 43(SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting their further presence, serves the purpose. Such recourse quickens the proceedings at such committal or other stages without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

¶129

[2] If police make out a case for custody of the Petitioner for purpose of interrogation as part of investigation of the crime, they shall move the learned Magistrate within fourteen days after release of the petitioner on bail granting the police custody, with necessary precautions- vide Guideline No iv of the Gurubaksh Singh (supra).

¶130

[3] Petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Wyra, on every Sunday till filing of the charge sheet and thereafter once in a month on 1^st Sunday till completion of trial/enquiry between 10.00 and 11.00 AM for assurance of his availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses.

¶131

[4] Petitioner shall not enter the village where the victim and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned Magistrate, to whom power is delegated by virtue of this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate.

¶132

[5] Petitioner shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not their bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439[2] Cr.P.C. delegated to the learned Magistrate by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate.

¶133

[6] Petitioner shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.

¶134

[7] Petitioner shall furnish his full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit his passport/s if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date before the Magistrate Court concerned (for collecting by police as part of their duty to investigate-also the means of accused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C., so to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties under section 437A Cr.P.C. etc.), failing which it is open to the learned Magistrate concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel the bail.

¶135

[8] The bail now granted is since a regular one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non-compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioner/s as accused for hearing/enquiry or trial, issuance of non bailable warrantNBW (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NBW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it

¶136

tantamount to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the court to issue surety notices by forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds forfeited); the proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per Section 441 to 446 Cr.P.C. and to submit fresh solvency with self bond for enlarging him by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again.

¶137

35) The Registry is required by this order to communicate the order to the Chief Secretaries of the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh for perusal and to take necessary steps to amend Section 429 I.P.C to make it non-bailable since the subject is in the concurrent list and also to amend the Sections 11 and 26 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to consider for enhancement of the punishment at par with Section 429 I.P.C if not more equally in Section 10 of A.P. Cow Slaughter Act, 1977 and to constitute or appoint the competent authority by notification under Sections 4 and 6 if not already constituted and existing and functioning and also establishment of the institutions if not already done, existing and functioning; for taking care of Cow and other animals under section 17 since the subjects under Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India read with Schedule VII, List-3, Entry 17 equally I.P.C and Cr.P.C provisions in the list-3.

¶138

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶139

26^th September, 2014 ksh

¶140