PETA Moves Karnataka High Court Against Release Of Rescued Dogs To Alleged Abuser

Granting interim relief to the animal rights NGO, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, the Karnataka High Court today [May 21] stayed a magistrate court's order directing the release of nine rescued dogs to their alleged abuser pending trial.

The Vacation Bench of Justice K.V. Aravind granted the interim stay after hearing a criminal petition filed by PETA India, challenging the custody release order dated April 25, 2026, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in favour of the accused abuser.

When the matter was taken up today, the Additional Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the State, and the accused was represented by Advocate Madan K S. The court has asked both the respondents to file detailed objections in the matter. The case has been listed for further hearing in the first week of June 2026.

Today, Adv. Soumya R. Nair, appearing for PETA, submitted that the accused had already relinquished the ownership of the dogs voluntarily after admitting that he had resorted to animal cruelty, which the magistrate did not take into account before passing the impugned orders dated April 25 and April 30.

“The accused is no longer the owner of the animals in question…he has committed animal cruelty, beating the dogs with sticks and being violent against them… There is a relinquishment deed”, PETA told the court.

The case pertained to six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus rescued by the Peenya Police on February 18, 2026, in pursuance of a complaint made by PETA on February 15, 2026. Accordingly, an FIR was registered under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and Sections 325 (killing or maiming an animal) and 62 (attempt to commit cognizable offence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

According to the petition, PETA India had received several complaints in February 2026 that one Ramesh N was subjecting the dogs in his possession to repeated heinous assault, such as daily beatings with sticks and pipes. He was also accused of sexual abuse of female dogs and their illegal breeding without mandatory registration.

The rescued dogs were initially placed under the care of animal welfare organisations like Charlie's Animal Rescue Centre (CARE), Compassion Unlimited Action Plus (CUPA), and Safescape Foundation. According to the plea, 7 out of the 9 dogs were adopted by other families, whereas two of them remain under the care and protection of CUPA.

According to PETA, on February 26, 2026, the accused executed notarised relinquishment deeds in favour of PETA India, voluntarily giving up ownership and custody of all nine dogs, after admitting his mistake.

However, as per PETA's version, flipping the script entirely, the accused later approached the trial court in April, seeking interim custody of the dogs while suppressing the factum of ownership relinquishment. Noting that there are no rival claims and that suitable conditions, like an indemnity bond to the tune of 5 lakhs and periodical production of CCTV footage, can ensure the safety of dogs, the trial court chose to return the custody of the dogs to the accused. Subsequently, a property release order was issued by the trial court in favour of the accused on April 30, 2026.

Challenging the trial court orders, PETA has approached the High Court, stating that the trial court orders are violative of Articles 51-A(g) and 21 of the Constitution. The plea further states that the impugned orders for returning the custody of animals defeat the objective of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Moreover, the Magistrate has also failed to appreciate the 'parens patriae' doctrine, and the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. State of Karnataka (2021), which underscored that the welfare of animals should attain prominence over other considerations, PETA says.

Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No.: Crl.P. No. 7003/202