’f" IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA T FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIIVIINAL REVISION CA<^F nq; PRADESH AMARAVATI ^ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO 253 OF 2Q2fi 438 & 442 of BNSS, praying that in the ““ ««™ 0, L 0,™!.* ase, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 1696 of 2024 in Cr No. 104 of 2024 Class, Kadiri and allow the Criminal Revision filed under Section 17-12-2024 in CrI.M.P No Judicial Magistrate of 1®* Case in the interest of justice. on the file of Revision Between: 1. Voola Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Lakshmannna No. 2-54, Kuppaguttapalli, Pedda Juturu, Aged about 50 years, R/o D Kadapa Distric -PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Nallacheruvu Police Station “.T" „.p. 2. R. Raghuram Sharma, (De-facto Aged about 41 Kadambathur Post and Mandal, Complainant) S/o MV Ramachandra years, R/o D No. 107-A, Astalakshmi Street, Tiruvalluru District. Tamilnadu State ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2n?fi *: t Be^een: 1. Voola Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Lakshmannna, Aged about D No. 2-54, Kuppaguttapalli, Pedda Juturu, Kadapa Distric 50 years, R/o ...PETITIONER AND 1.The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Nallacheruvu Police Station, Ananthapuram District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High of A.P. Amaravati. 2. R. Raghuram Sharma, (De-facto Complainant) S/o MV Ramachandra, Aged about 41 years, R/o D No. 107-A, Astalakshmi Street, Kadambathur Post and Mandal, Tiruvalluru District, Tamilnadu State Court ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS S.Sijas K.A. S/o Abukakar, aged about 39 R/o Sreemoolangaram village, Aluva Tank, Ernakulam District of Kerala State. 4. Anas M.H. S/o Makkarukutty H.M. aged about 44 R/o Cheruvelikkunnu Village, Ernakulam District, Kerala years. years State. 3. S.O.E.AIavudeen, S/o Ebrahim, aged about 48 R/o Oravundal, Pattimottam, near Mankrakkayil Bhavathi temple Kummanode, Kranakulam District, Kerala State. years, ...PROPOSED RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed respondents 3 to 5 respondents 3 to 5 in the Criminal Revision Case No. 253 of 2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi praying that in the as Petition under Section 528 of BNSS circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim custody of the 10 bulls (white in colour) belonging to the petitioner seized in Crime No. 104 of 2024 by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: praying that in the 1 r APHC010092762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO- ?An/?n7g Between: Voola Ramanjaneyulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KVRAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. The Criminal Revision Case, has been filed by the petitioner/claimant, under Section 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, short, 2023 (for 17.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1696 of 2024, in connection with Crime No.104 of 2024 of Naliacheruvu Police Station, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, YSR Kadapa, whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner, under Section 503 of BNSS seeking interim custody of the crime property (seized bulls), was dismissed. ‘BNSS’), aggrieved by the order dated 2. The revision petitioner asserts that he is the claimant and lawful owner of the livestock, which consists of ten 21.11.2024, at the Agriculture Market Committee in Pulivendula. On white colour bulls, purchased on ■ p respondent/Police, seized the aforementioned livestock 22.11.2024, the 1 based on a false complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. The complaint falsely accused the petitioner of engaging in illegal cattle trafficking through Pradesh, originating from Telangana and Karnataka. The petitioner Andhra further contends that the livestock was acquired to support his livelihood, and that immediate access to grazing and watering is essential to prevent the animals from perishing due to starvation. He further assures the Court that he will produce the livestock whenever required. 3. Heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1®* respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bulls seized in connection with the above-mentioned case are the property of the petitioner. The petitioner purchased these bulls as a means to sustain his livelihood and has been diligently caring for them. The de facto complainant appears to have filed the complaint under the mistaken belief that the petitioner was involved in illegal cattle trafficking through Andhra Pradesh, originating from Telangana and Karnataka. The investigation has since been concluded, and the police have submitted a report to the Court concerning the seizure of several cattle. Given the critical role these cattle play in the petitioner’s livelihood, he now seeks the interim custody of the seized cattle. 4. 5, During the pendency of the present revision case, on 09.04.2025, this directed the petitioner to file an affidavit specifying the location where Court the cattle will be kept once released, along with the details of the property and further directed that the information must be provided to the Sub-Inspector of Police for verification of the availability of such a place. In this regard, the petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court, affirming that he has provided regarding the cattle shed near his house bearing D.No.2/54, information Kuppaguttapalli, Pedda Jutur, YSR District, which is used to provide protection and shelter to the cattle. The premises are equipped with a cattle shed that facilities for the bullocks, which are intended solely for offers all necessary 3 agricultural purposes. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Station House Officer has verified the information provided by the petitioner and confirmed its correctness. A perusal of the record reveals that the Respondent-State has not disputed the petitioner’s claim of ownership over the seized property. The petitioner has submitted a receipt showing the value of the seized property, which appears to be unreasonable. The allegation against the petitioner that he was involved in illegal cattle trafficking, remains a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial. The petitioner has also submitted an undertaking, assuring that he will take proper care of the bullocks, ensuring they receive adequate water, fodder, and regular check ups from the veterinary doctor available in the village. Furthermore, the petitioner has committed to producing the bullocks whenever required and guarantees that he will not dispose of the bullocks pending the resolution of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Crl,R.C.No.143 of 2024, which involved similar facts and circumstances. Upon considering the submissions made and perusing the said order, this Court is of the view that the present Revision Case can be disposed of on similar terms and conditions. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as well as the undertaking furnished by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the revision case by imposing the following conditions, with the intent of ensuring the protection of the property during the course of trial and safeguarding the scheduled bulls from any possible misuse by the petitioner; (1) The 1®* respondent police shall release the ten white coloured bulls to the petitioner and the petitioner shall maintain the bulls by giving sufficient food and water. 7. 4 -^1 (2) The 1®* Respondent Police shall conduct a panchanama in the presence of a Revenue Official and two respected elders from the locality where the bulls are currently kept, ensuring that each bull is properly identified and marked with a seal and label. (3) The petitioner shall take the scheduled bulls to the veterinary hospital at his expenses for examination by the veterinary doctor regarding their age and health condition of the bulls and the report of the veterinary doctor shall be submitted to the respondent police. (4) The petitioner shall inform the S.H.O., concerned regarding death any other ill-health of the bulls and on such incident, the S.H.O., shall conduct panchanama and submit report before the trial Court. (5) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two local sureties by executing their personal bonds likewise for which the petitioner and sureties jointly and severally liable if there is any violation against the released scheduled bulls. or are 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- V.SATYANARAYANA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of Class, Kadiri 2. The SHO Nallacheruvu Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District. 3. The III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, YSR Kadapa. 4. One CC to SRI. K V RAGHU VEER. Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies at C^^ /I HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.253 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE