'Don't Need To Beat Dogs To Discipline': Karnataka High Court Extends Order Halting Release Of 9 Rescued Dogs To Man Accused Of Cruelty

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday [June 3] orally critcized a man accused of unethically treating dogs, refusing to return to him the custody of the nine dogs which were rescued. 

The court was hearing PETA's petition challenging a challenging a magistrate court's order dated April 25 which had directed the release of the dogs to the man pending trial. The high court had on May 21 stayed the magistrate's court order. Today, the court extended its interim order. 

During the hearing today, a single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscored that dogs need not be beaten for them to be taught or disciplined. 

“…Discipline? You breed them and teach them? Dogs need not be beaten to be taught…. If you want to beat the dogs to teach them something, they may learn and may not learn…that's a different thing…You need not have the dogs. I will not direct returning the dogs to you at all. How can you beat the dogs? Unethical treatment to animals," the court orally said. 

The case pertains to six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus rescued by the Peenya Police on February 18 in PETA's complaint. An FIR was registered under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act and Sections 325 (killing or maiming an animal) and 62 (attempt to commit cognizable offence) BNS.

PETA has alleged that it had 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 accused of illegal breeding without mandatory registration.

The dogs were rescued on February 18, 2026, and initially placed under the care of animal welfare organisations including Charlie's Animal Rescue Centre (CARE), Compassion Unlimited Action Plus (CUPA), and Safescape Foundation. According to the plea, 7 out of the 9 dogs have already been adopted by other families, while two remain under CUPA's care.

When the matter was taken up today the counsel for the accused filed their detailed objections against the writ petition. During the hearing the man's counsel said that he was not a dog breeder but a resident. 

At this stage the court asked, "Why do you need nine dogs, if you are not a breeder?" To which the counsel said, "…What can I do if dogs give birth to more puppies? I am a divorcee…for emotional support, milord."

At this stage, PETA's counsel said that as per his instructions the dogs were not nuetered and were pure bred. 

"Whatever it is, no right to beat the dogs," the court orally said. 

The man's counsel further said, "…During pendency, they have coerced me to execute relinquishment letter…Hand in glove with the investigating officer...When I went to police station for releasing of dogs after the court order, I have been stopped by IO, enabling complainant to approach this court". 

The accused also tried to point out that the notarised relinquishment deed did not have signatures on every page.

"Which dog do you want?", the judge orally asked the counsel at this juncture. The man's counsel replied that he wanted the custody of all dogs.

“You want all dogs… but you are not disciplined”, the court orally said. 

While parting with the matter, the court made it clear that the interim order granted will subsist till the next date of hearing.

"We will resolve this dog problem next week," the court said, while posting the matter for further hearing on June 10. 

PETA India was represented by Adv. Sankeerth Vittal and Soumya R Nair whereas the accused was represented by Adv. Vasushrutha Sharma.

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

Case No.: Crl.P. No. 7003/2026