Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC (read with Section 528 BNSS) challenging an order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime No.89/2026. The impugned order allowed an application filed by respondent No.2 (Ramesh) under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of dogs that were seized in connection with offences under Sections 325 and 62 of the 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 examined the facts: a complaint was lodged alleging that respondent No.2 was involved in illegal dogfighting and cruelty to dogs, leading to the seizure of several dogs. PETA, as an animal welfare organization, intervened and was granted custody of the dogs by the Magistrate. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed an application for interim custody of the dogs, which was allowed by the Magistrate, prompting PETA to approach the High Court. The legal issues considered were whether PETA had locus standi to challenge the order, and whether the Magistrate's order granting interim custody to the accused was legally sustainable. The court analyzed the provisions of the PCA Act, particularly Section 11(1), which prohibits cruelty to animals, and the BNSS provisions regarding interim custody of property. The court held that PETA, being an organization dedicated to animal welfare and having a statutory role under the PCA Act, had sufficient locus standi. On the merits, the court reasoned that granting interim custody of the seized dogs to the accused, who was charged with cruelty to those very animals, would be contrary to the object 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 interim custody should not be given to the accused pending trial. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order dated 25.04.2026, and directed that the dogs remain in the custody of PETA or any other suitable animal shelter pending disposal of the main case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Animals - Locus Standi - Section 482 CrPC, Section 528 BNSS - Animal welfare organization (PETA) has locus standi to challenge order granting interim custody of seized animals to accused in cruelty case, as it is an 'aggrieved person' under Section 11(1) of PCA Act and has statutory duty to prevent cruelty. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 11(1) - Interim Custody - Purpose of Act - The PCA Act aims to prevent cruelty to animals and ensure their welfare; granting interim custody of seized animals to the accused pending trial would defeat this purpose, as the animals may be subjected to further cruelty or disposed of. (Paras 11-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody - Sections 497 and 503 BNSS - Application for interim custody of property (animals) by accused - Such application cannot be allowed when the accused is charged with cruelty to those very animals, as it would be against the interest of justice and the welfare of the animals. (Paras 21-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate's order granting interim custody of dogs to the accused in a case of animal cruelty is sustainable in law, and whether PETA has locus standi to challenge 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, in Crime No.89/2026, and directed that the dogs remain in the custody of PETA or any other suitable animal shelter pending disposal of the main case.
Law Points
- Interim custody of animals in cruelty cases
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- Sections 497 and 503 BNSS
- Section 11(1) PCA Act
- Sections 325 and 62 BNS
- locus standi of animal welfare organizations
- purpose of PCA Act
