Dhyan Foundation Gaushala, Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁴ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{TIRUMALA DEVI EAOA}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 128390F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dhvan Foundation Gaushala,,^{Golur road, Peddashapol,Nearstatue-o-f Equality,} il1,';i;i"i-ijti. n'anoiiiaov,'soss2s nei^{bv its sevak sri K Harishs/o K Rama} ffi : H;'35 G,' od"EG;6iJ^{Rio t es shailv Garden, Yapral Hvderabad 500087}

¶9

...PETITIONER/3'd^PartY

¶10

AND

¶11

l.ThestateofTelangana,,repbyPublicProsecutor,HighCourtofHyderabad'

¶12

Mohd.Naveed,, S/o.Mohd^{Habeeb Qureshi,Age25 yrs,Occ driver' R/o'l-4-}

¶13

551 /7, Gulshaiiagar,Bholakpur,^Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under section^{528 of BNSS Act prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High courtmay} be pleased to set-a-side/^{quash the proceedingsin CRLMP NO 307 ol 2025in} cR.No.l23of2o2'incc.No.g2ooF2o2SPSChitiyalonthefileofthe Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate^{First class-cum-JuniorcivilJudge at Nalgonda.}

¶16

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,upon perusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of^{CriminalPetition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri} G.L.Narasimha^{Rao,Advocatefor the Petitionersand the Sri..Jithend erRaoVeeramalb'} Additional Public Prosecutor^{on behalfof the RespondentNo'1}

¶17

The Court made^{the followingrORDER}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETI TION No.'|2839 of 2025

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking to setaside the orders dated 28.08.2025 passed in Cd.M.P.No.30T of 2O2S in Crime No.123 of 2O25 (CC.No.920 of 2025, on the fite of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, in granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein/owner of the property.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is representing Goshala and that interim custody of animals is given to the said Goshala and 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 Goshala.

¶23

2

¶24

ETD,I C .P.No.12A39 of 2025

¶25

Learned counsel further submitted that in violation of the said Rule, the learned Trial Court passed orders in Crl.M.p.No.307 of 2025 in Crime No.123 ot 2025 (CC.No.920 of 2O2S), dated 28:.08.2025 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.

¶26

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 Goshala which is maintaining the animals herein.

¶27

Perused the record. The petition vide Crl.[4.P.N o.307 ot 2025 in Crime No.123 ot 2025 (CC.No.920 ot 2025) was allowed by the Trial Court granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein subject to condition of filing original motor cycle i.e., Mahindra Bolero with registration No.TS-12-UC-9771 of P.S.Chityal. Rule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference.

¶28

'5. Execution of bond:- (1) The Magistrate when handing

¶29

over the custody of animal to an intirmary, pinjarapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala shall determine an

¶30

I amount which is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incurred \ and anticipated to be incurred for transpott, maintenance and

¶31

3

¶32

ETD) O1.P.No.12839 of 2O25

¶33

t I

¶34

\ \

¶35

treatment of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veteinary officer and shall direct the accusd and the owner to execute a bond of the determined value with suretles within three days and if the accused and owner do not execute the bond, the animal shall be fofieited to infirmary, pinjrapote, SpCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.

¶36

(2) The infirmary, pinjrapote, SPCA, Animat Wetfare Organisation or Gaushala having the custody of the animat may draw on from the bond on a fodnightly basis the actuat reasonabte cost incurred in caing for the animal from the date tt received custody ti the date offinal disposal of the animat.

¶37

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

¶38

(4) Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the Magistrate shalt direct that the vehicte be hetd as a securitt,.

¶39

(5) ln case of offence relating to transpott of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transpottet, agents and any other parties involved sha be jointly and severally liabte for the cost of transpott, treatment and care of animals_

¶40

(6) /n cases where a body corporate owns the animal, the Chief Executive Officer, President or highest-ranking emptoyee of the body corporate, the body cotporate and the accused sha be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transpott, treatmcrnt and care of the animal.

¶41

(7) /n cases where the Govemment owns the animal, the Head of the Depadment and the accused sha be jointty and severally liable for the cost of transpott, treatment and care of the animal.

¶42

4

¶43

ETD,T Crl.P.No.12839 of 2025

¶44

(8) lf the owner and the accused do not have the means to furnish the bond, the Magistrate shatt direct the tocat authority to undertake fhe cosfs invorved and recover the same as a*ears of land revenue."

¶45

7 -. Thus, in view of Rute s and Rure s (4) of the pr,evention of cruelty to Animats Act, 1960, the Trial court is not supposed to grant interim custody of the vehicre to the petitioner therein. rnstead, it has to be kept as a security to the Goshala. Hence, the orders passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set-aside.

¶46

ln view of the aforesaid discussion, the criminar petition is allowed setting aside the orders dated 2g.og.zo2s passed in crl.M.P-No.307 of 202s in crime No.123 of 2o2s of chityara potice station (cc.No.920 of 202s, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First class-cum-principar Junior civir Judge, Nargonda).

¶47