Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court has disposed of a petition filed by two Estate Officers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in connection with a case concerning the disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the DRDO campus in Bengaluru, after noting that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recorded that one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Sahu, has been dropped from the array of accused in the chargesheet, while the second petitioner has been retained as an accused in the final report.

The Court was informed by the Additional Solicitor General and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner did not figure in the chargesheet. When counsel for the complainant objected to his exclusion, the Court said that while it could not curtail the complainant's rights, the appropriate remedy would be to take recourse before the trial court.

At the outset, the Court took note of the submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner does not figure in the chargesheet. When the counsel for the complainant raised objections regarding the dropping of the first petitioner, the Court remarked that though it can't curtail the rights of the complainant, the apt recourse would be before the trial court.

“…. The investigation stands complete and the chargesheet is filed before the concerned court. The chargesheet drops first petitioner from array of accused, retains the second petitioner and chargesheet is filed before concerned court on 2nd petitioner. The counsel for complainant submits that he has objections to dropping of first petitioner from the array of accused, therefore liberty is reserved to the complainant to take recourse to law if they are so aggrieved by the filing of the final report before the concerned court…The subject petition stands disposed of… Liberty is further reserved to these parties to knock the doors of this court in the event of need in the future”, the court accordingly noted in the order.

The case arose from the alleged disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the sprawling DRDO campus. Earlier, while considering the matter, the Court had described the circumstances as “peculiar” and “unsettling”, observing that the dogs were allegedly removed from the campus “in a clandestine and wholly unethical manner” and that their whereabouts remained unknown.

The Court had observed, "the case concerns not merely missing animals, but twenty-one voiceless beings who have disappeared without trace and whose fate remains unknown…”

Initially, Crime No.153/2026 was registered against the accused employees on 09.03.2026 by the Mahadevapura Police Station for offences U/s 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and Section 240, 325, 270, 61(1) of the BNS 2023.

The officers had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that they were being made “vicariously liable” for the alleged attempt by unknown persons to relocate stray dogs from the DRDO premises.

In an interim order passed in March, the High Court had stayed the criminal proceedings. The stay was subsequently vacated in June, when the Court permitted the police to complete the investigation within six weeks, while directing that the petitioner officers should not be subjected to harassment or coercive measures during the investigation.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 4677/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)312

Tags: