Interim Custody of Rescued Animals Cannot Be Granted to an Accused Who Voluntarily Relinquished Ownership

The Petitioner, PETA India, filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2 (the owner) alleging that nine dogs (6 Golden Retrievers and 3 Shih Tzus) were being subjected to brutal physical assault, sexual abuse, and illegal breeding

A FIR was registered under Sections 325 and 62 of the BNS and Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960

Following the rescue, Respondent No. 2 executed formal relinquishment deeds admitting to the cruelty and surrendering all ownership rights to PETA

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed an application for interim custody under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS. The XXXI ACJM, Bengaluru, allowed the application on 25.04.2026, directing the release of the dogs to the accused

The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court.

1. Whether the Magistrate's order granting interim custody of rescued animals to the accused perpetrator is sustainable in law, especially following a voluntary relinquishment of ownership

2. Whether the ethical treatment and welfare of sentient beings override the proprietary claims of an owner accused of extreme cruelty

The court applied Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, which prohibits treating animals in a manner causing unnecessary pain or suffering

It referenced Sections 325 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding the maiming or killing of animals

Procedurally, the court scrutinized Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (formerly Sections 451/457 CrPC) regarding the disposal of property

The court further relied on the civilizational principle that animals are "sentient beings" entitled to dignity and protection under constitutional morality, transcending their status as mere "chattels"

The High Court found the Magistrate’s order "preposterous" and a "grave failure of judicial sensitivity"

The court emphasized that Respondent No. 2 had not only faced allegations of depravity (including sexual abuse) but had signed self-incriminatory relinquishment deeds admitting to beating the dogs with pipes and failing in his duty as a guardian

The court reasoned that restoring custody to a confessed perpetrator while an investigation is pending defeats the very object of animal protection laws

Furthermore, the court held that in the scale of justice, the "sentience" and capacity of animals to suffer weight heavier than the legal technicalities of interim property custody

The Magistrate’s reliance on precedents regarding the return of property to owners was deemed inapplicable where the owner had voluntarily surrendered rights and the "property" involved was living, suffering beings

The Court held that the nine rescued dogs shall remain in the permanent guardianship and custody of PETA India for their continued rehabilitation and medical care

The court affirmed that protecting animal life is an "affirmation of constitutional morality" and that justice must extend to the voiceless