Karnataka HC refuses to release 48 buffaloes to owner, says their transport in a container from Haryana to Kerala raises doubts about the farming claim

The petitioner was Accused No. 1 in a case registered after police found 51 buffaloes in a container lorry near Navayuga Toll, Nelamangala, while they were being transported from Haryana to Kerala.

The case alleged offences under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 192(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Magistrate granted the petitioner interim custody of the buffaloes on 15 November 2025.

On a revision brought by Mysuru Pinjrapole Society, the Sessions Court set aside that order on 20 December 2025 and left the animals in the Society’s care.

The petitioner sought to quash the revisional order and restore his interim custody, relying on purchase and medical documents and asserting that the animals were intended for farming.

1. Whether the Sessions Court’s order setting aside the Magistrate’s grant of interim custody to the petitioner warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether, pending trial, the buffaloes should be released to the petitioner or remain in the custody of the third respondent, having regard to their welfare and the circumstances of their transportation.

Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern interim custody of property seized during criminal proceedings; the custody granted under those provisions is interim.

The charges arose under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 192(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court treated the health and welfare of the seized animals as the paramount consideration when determining interim custody.

The revisional court had relied on Raghuram Sharma v. Thulasi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1325; the High Court observed that its principles were not directly applicable to the present facts.

Although the High Court accepted that Raghuram Sharma was not directly applicable, it considered the circumstances of the seizure significant: 51 buffaloes were being transported in a container from Haryana to Kerala in an inappropriate manner.

This, in the Court’s prima facie view, suggested that the petitioner’s stated purpose of farming might be a ruse.

The Court noted that the third respondent was then looking after the buffaloes properly and held that their health and welfare took priority at that stage.

It further observed that, if the petitioner established at trial that the purchase was bona fide and no offence had been committed, a release order could be made in his favour at the conclusion of the trial.

Pending trial, the animals remained in the third respondent’s care; any pending applications were also disposed of.