Allowed

Shree Samarth Kamadhenu Gow Shala, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2025CRLP/14322/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gowshala challenged a revisional order granting interim custody of a vehicle used in transporting cattle to its owner. The High Court held that Rule 5(4) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 requires such a vehicle to be held as security for the Gowshala and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 17.10.2025 in Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2025 (Principal District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet) granting interim custody of the vehicle were set aside.

Shree Samarth Kamadhenu Gow Shala, Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

cRt MINAL PETITION NO:14322OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shree Samarth Kamadhenu Gow Shala,, Opp. GHMC Colony, Shiva Bagh, Jiyaguda, Puranapul, Hyderabad, 500006 through its Representative Purushotham Gupta, S/o Rampathalal Gupta, Age 58 years, Occ. Gow Sevak, R/o H.N.o. 21-1-214, Near High Court, Hyderabad

¶8

...Petitioner/3Ro Party

¶9

AND

¶10

The State ofTelangana,, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad. ...Respondenucomplainant

¶11

Bonth Ramdass, S/o Mangy Age 43 Years, OCC. Slaughter Business R/o. Ganga Bandla Gudem(V), Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District

¶12

...RespondenUAccused / Owners

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-a-side/ quash the orders vide CRL.R.P. NO. 14 OF 2025, dated 17.10.2025on the file of the Principal District and Sessions judge Suryapet lN CRL M.P.NO.282 OF 2025 in Crime No.183 of 2025 (p.S.Mothey) on the fite of the lstADDL.JUDtctAL MAGTSTRATE FTRST CLASS At suryapei.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file quash aggrieved the orders in CRL.R.P. NO. 14 OF 2025, dated 17 t10t2o25 on the file of the principat District and Sessions judge Suryapet.

¶16

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders CRL.R.P. NO. 14 OF 2025, dated 17t1Ol2O2S on the file of Principal District and Sessions judge Suryapet.

¶18

-7

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr G L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.l432 2ot 2025

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section S28 of Bharatiya Nhgarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Learned counsel further submitted that in violation of the said Rule, the learned Trial Court passed orders in Crl.R.P.No.'14 of 2O2S

ETD,I Crl.P.No.14j22 ol 2O2S

¶31

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 raw and therefore prayed to set aside the said orders.

¶32

5' The rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor has submitted that the interim custody shourd 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 Gowshara which is maintaining the animars herein.

¶33

Perused the record. The petition vide Crl.R.p.N o.14 ot 2025 in Crime No.183 of 2O2S was allowed by the Trial Court directing the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, to order for interim custody of the catfle to the petitioner by imposing any reasonable conditions to its satisfaction. ln 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.

¶34

"s (1) The Magistrate when handing over the custody of animat to an infirmary, pinjarapole, SpCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala shall determine an amount which is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incuned and anticipated' to be incurred for transpott, maintenance ancr treatment of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinary officer and shalt direct the accusd anct the owner to execute a bond of the determined vatue with suret es within three days and if the accused and owner do not execute the

¶35

¶36

ETD,I Ctl.P.No.14322 ol2025

¶37

I (

¶38

bond, the animal shall be fqfeited to infirmary,^{pinirapole,SPCA,} Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.

¶39

(2) The infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal^Welfare Organisation or Gaushala having the custody^{of the animal may} draw on from the bond on a fodnightly^{basisthe actual reasonable} cost incuned in caring fot the animal from the date^{it received} custody till the date of final disposal of the^animal-

¶40

(3) The Magistrate shall call for the accused and the owner^to execute additional bond with sureties once^{eightypercent} of^the initial bond amount has been exhausted as cost for^{caringfor the} animal.

¶41

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

¶42

(5) ln case of offence relating to transpott of animals,^the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transpofier,^agents and^any other pafties involved shall be^jointly and severally liable^{for the} cost of transpoft, treatment and care of animals.

¶43

(6) /n cases where a body corporate owns the animal,^the Chief Executive Officer, President or^{highest+anking employeeof} the body corporate, the body corporate aN the^{accused shall be} jointty and severally liable for fhe cost of transport, treatnent and care of the animal.

¶44

(7) ,n cases where the Government owns the animal,^the Head of the Depaftment and the accused^{shall be} iointly^and severally liable for the cost of^{transport, treatment andcare of the} animal.

¶45

(S) lf the owner and the accused do^{not have the means to} furnish the bond, the^{Magistrate shall direct the local authority to} undeftake fhe costs invotved and^{recover the same as arrears of} land revenue."

¶46

-^-q

¶47

¶48

ETD,I Crl.P.No.74322 of 2025

¶49

Thus, in view of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Trial Court is not supposed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein. lnstead, it has to be kept as^a security to the Gowshala. Hence, the orders passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set-aside

¶50

B. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting 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 at Suryapet.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶52

SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet

¶59

2 The station House officer, Mothey police Station, suryapet District.

¶60

3 Two ccs to the^public prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

4 One CC to Mr. G L NARASTMHA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI

¶62

Two CD Copies RC/PB

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0611112025

ORDER

'
,4'-:';':: i
/' ' -' -)''
,'.' -
I ,:,
:
t,:;
!,.
2 0 tLC z{U:l (':
ij

¶68

CRLP.No.14322 o12025

¶69

Accordingly, this^{CriminalPetition is Allowed.}

¶70

t$-

¶71

..)
s '>

Shree Samarth Kamadhenu Gow Shala, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Samarth Kamadhenu Gow Shala, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pettugalla Linga Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Yeli Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Uppada Ravi Kumar Vs State of Telengana.

G. Anil Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Jakkula Laxmi, Vs The State of Telangana

E.Prameela @ Eraku Prameela, Vs The State of Telangana