Karnataka HC Refuses To Lift Stay On Probe Over Dog Relocation At DRDO Premises, Directs Preservation Of CCTV Footage

The Karnataka High Court has refused to lift an interim stay granted on an FIR initiated against Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO] employees under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for allegedly relocating the dogs within the DRDO township at Bengaluru.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has asked the respondents to file their objections within the next date of hearing on 25 April. The court also directed the DRDO to preserve the CCTV footage in case it would become necessary for further investigation.

“Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing. Petitioner DRDO shall preserve the CCTV footage of the day if needed for further investigation”, the court noted in the order.

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. FIR was registered against the Estate Manager and Cleaning Supervisor of DRDO based on a complaint filed by Dr Vivek K Bidarakar, Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry[R2], to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) [R1].

Today, ASG Arvind Kamath, appearing for the DRDO employees, submitted that there cannot be 'vicarious liability' for an action of unidentified persons.

“…. The complaint says three unidentified people may have maimed the dogs. I have no difficulty in prosecuting them”, ASG told the court.

The counsel appearing for the R2 informant submitted a request that the court may lift its interim stay and permit the investigation to recommence on the condition that no precipitative action should be taken against the current accused.

The counsel for R2 informant added that BBMP is finally paying heed to the words of the father of the nation about the fair treatment of animals.

“…The father of the nation said that the greatest measure of a nation and its moral progress is judged by how its animals are treated”, the counsel for R2 told the court.

At this point, the court remarked that BBMP should first address the issue of stray dogs in the city and not in the DRDO premises.

“Not inside DRDO premises… Do it all over the city…Then we would say that you are following the principles…”, the court orally said.

The ASG also said that the just treatment of animals is a part of India's cultural ethos and there need not be a separate discussion about the same.

The counsel for R2 continued: “These kind of orders[interim order] are sending a very wrong message, Your Lordship…The father of the nation, I feel like he is smiling down at me, and I am wondering…”.

Interrupting the counsel, the court remarked as follows: “…Maybe at you. Don't bring the father of the nation into it again…and don't worry about the message of the orders..”

“They were supposed to turn over the CCTV footage on 11 March…Tomorrow, they will say that the CCTV footage is not there”, the counsel for R2 informant added on another note. BBMP also supported the counsel's request and prayed that the CCTV footage be preserved.

“You file objections…we will see if the investigation can go on…If there is a case, we will permit further investigation”, the court orally remarked before adjourning the matter.

Context

On the previous date of hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna expressed shock that the State had entertained such a complaint against DRDO employees.

“ The complaint is said to have emerged before the BBMP that some dogs, found in the premises of DRDO's 70-acre campus, were being relocated. If the dogs are being relocated by the DRDO officials inside their premises, it is shocking how BBMP would get this jurisdiction to enter the said office and register a crime invoking provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 325 BNS,” the court noted in its order.

Objecting to the FIR, ASG Arvind Kamath said that the police had invoked Section 325 of BNS [mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal] in the FIR disproportionately when the allegation is that the animals were relocated from the premises.

The Senior Counsel also vehemently argued that BBMP has been taking counterproductive steps in the matter of stray dogs.

On March 25, the court enquired how the Bruhat Bengaluru Maha Nagara Palike (BBMP) could have a problem with the dogs' relocation within the premises and whether it would have a problem if the dogs were not relocated at all. The Court also orally remarked that sometimes the State has the habit of 'pinching the wrong nerve of someone' in such matters.

“..Dogs are found in the premises of DRDO. What's your problem?.... You should search for the dogs wandering on the streets… There are a lot of dogs in the city, but you have a problem with this?”, the Court told BBMP.

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

Case No: CRL.P 4677/2026