5. The Court, on hearing both sides, came to a conclusion that the puppies are liable to be handed over to the 2^ndrespondent herein. Accordingly, interim custody was granted conditionally. The 2^ndrespondent was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.80,000/- with one surety and he was also directed to produced the two puppies as and when required. He was also directed not to sell or alienate the said puppies.

6. On this day, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner i.e. People for Animals, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, is meant to take proper care of pet animals and the concerned Police after seizing the puppies in question, granted custody of the puppies to the People for Animals and the puppies were in the custody of People for Animals. Learned counsel also states that through the impugned order, custody was given to the 2^nd respondent which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that in case the custody continues with the 2^nd respondent, the puppies would die of starvation.

7. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned counsel for the 2^ndrespondent submits that the 2^nd

2

respondent is the lawful owner of the said puppies and he purchased the said puppies spending huge amount of Rs.80,000/- and indeed, the puppies were transported from Bangalore to Hyderabad taking proper care. But only on the ground that there was no ventilation and sufficient space for movement in the vehicle in which puppies were transported, a case was registered against the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel also states that the 2^nd respondent executed a personal bond for Rs.80,000/- and he gave an assurance that he will not sell or alienate the puppies. By stating so, learned counsel seeks to confirm the impugned order.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that the observations of the learned Judge in the impugned order are well reasoned and it was clearly ordered that the 2^ndrespondent shall produce the puppies as and when required and it was further ordered that the 2^ndrespondent shall not sell or alienate the said puppies and hence, order requires no interference.

9. This Court is in full agreement with the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. As the puppies

3

were given to the interim custody of the 2^ndrespondent with required conditions laid, the 2^ndrespondent is under obligation to take good care of the puppies. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. This Court does not find any grounds, more so, justifiable grounds to transfer the custody of the puppies to the petitioner. Only because the interim custody was given for a limited period by the concerned Police, it does not mean that the custody should be continued that too against the interests of the lawful owner. No other grounds are found so as to interfere with the order of the learned Judge which is well reasoned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that both the Criminal petitions lacks merits.

10. Resultantly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________

Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Dt.16.08.2022

ysk

4

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6444 OF 2022

AND

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6463 OF 2022 Dt.16.08.2022

ysk

5

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MAIN CASE No:CRL.P.No.7182 of 2022

PROCEEDING SHEET

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

6

to stay all further proceedings in Crime No.132 of 2022 of Veenavanka Police Station, Karimnagar District.

contd…2 -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the child in question was given in adoption through valid means. But a false case is foisted against the petitioners and in case the petitioners are arrested, the petitioners would be put to serious hardship.

Learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the police to follow the procedure established under law.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection.

Therefore, the present Interlocutory

Application is disposed of with the following directions:-

(1) The Station House Officer, Veenavanka Police Station, shall not effect arrest of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 without following the procedure established by law.

(2) The Station House Officer, Veenavanka Police Station/Investigating Officer shall adhere to the requirement to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C, except under the circumstances mentioned under Sections 41(1) and 41-A (4) Cr.P.C.

7

(3) The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar¹shall be followed.

(4) The Station House Officer/Investigating Officer shall not insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 during the

contd…3

-3- course of investigation, except where their personal appearance is required.

(5) In case the personal appearance of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 is required, the same shall be communicated to them in writing indicating the reasons for which their personal appearance is sought.

(6) However, it is made clear that the Investigation may go on.

(7) That the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall cooperate with the police during the process of investigation.

_________

Dr.CSL,J

ysk

8

9

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1‐State. In the light of the limited request made, issuance of notice to the Respondent No.2 is felt not required.

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime NO.232 of 2022 of Humayun nagar Police Station. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on a pure civil

10

was registered and therefore as a counter blast to the said case, the 2^ndrespondent went to police staion and basing on the false averments, got registered a false case against the eptitioenrs. However, learned counsel also submits that

11