Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) challenging an order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The Magistrate had allowed an application filed by respondent No.2 (the accused) under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of dogs that were seized in Crime No.89/2026 registered for offences under Sections 325 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). The dogs were in the custody of PETA at the time of the application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Magistrate's order granting interim custody of the dogs to the accused was legally unsustainable. The court observed that animals are not mere property but are victims of cruelty, and granting their custody to the accused pending trial would defeat the purpose of the PCA Act and could expose the animals to further harm. The court emphasized that the welfare of the animals is paramount and that the provisions of the BNSS regarding interim custody of property do not apply to live animals in cruelty cases. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed that the dogs remain in the custody of PETA or any other suitable shelter pending trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) - Quashing of Magistrate's Order - The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of court and secure ends of justice, including setting aside an interlocutory order that is patently illegal or perverse. (Para 1-3) B) Animal Law - Interim Custody - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 11(1) - Animals as Victims - In cases of cruelty to animals, the animals are victims and not property; interim custody cannot be granted to the accused as it may lead to further cruelty or tampering with evidence. The court must consider the welfare of the animals and the purpose of the PCA Act. (Para 2-4) C) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Property - Sections 497 and 503 BNSS - Applicability to Animals - The provisions for interim custody of property under BNSS do not apply to live animals seized in cruelty cases, as animals are sentient beings and require special protection under the PCA Act. (Para 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate's order granting interim custody of dogs to the accused in a case of animal cruelty is legally sustainable, and whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside such order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, and directed that the dogs remain in the custody of PETA or any other suitable shelter pending trial.
Law Points
- Interim custody of animals in cruelty cases
- Animals as victims not property
- Section 482 CrPC inherent powers
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 497 BNSS
- Section 503 BNSS
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 Section 11(1)
- BNS Sections 325 and 62
