Where are the 21 stray dogs that once roamed freely inside the Phase-II township of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in Kaggadasapura? The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday allowed the continuation of a probe to find the answer to this question by vacating an earlier stay on the investigation into a criminal case. The case was registered by an animal husbandry official of the Bengaluru East City Corporation based on a public complaint alleging ill-treatment of stray dogs inside the township.

However, the court restrained the police from harassing the petitioner-officials of the DRDO or taking any coercive action against them, irrespective of the outcome of the probe. At the same time, it directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and assist the prosecution in arriving at the truth.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order while modifying the earlier order on the petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar Sahu, estate manager, Estate Management Unit (EMU), DRDO township, and T.G. Sudhakar, cleaning supervisor, DRDO.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on March 9 on a complaint lodged by Vivek K. Bidarakar, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, who acted on complaints received from both animal activists and the public, who raised concerns via social media on the alleged ill-treatment of dogs in the township during an incident on March 5, when EMU staff reportedly captured three strays.

A video of the alleged capture and subsequent release of the three stray dogs was widely circulated on social media. The complaint alleged that 21 stray dogs went missing from the township subsequently.

The petitioners, who were arraigned as accused along with three unidentified persons in the FIR, had approached the court challenging the allegations against them. The court had stayed the probe on March 25.

On Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General of India Arvind Kamath, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the offences alleged against the two estate officers were “to say the least, preposterous”. He contended that the offences under Sections 240 (giving false information in respect of an offence committed), 270 (causing public nuisance), 325 (mischief by killing or maiming an animal) and 61 (criminal conspiracy) could not even remotely be linked to any acts allegedly committed by the petitioners.

Probe necessary

However, Mr. Kamath said an investigation was necessary to ascertain who entered the DRDO campus, took away the dogs and what their present status is, while arguing that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for what happened to the animals. He clarified that DRDO staff had no role in the capture or disappearance of the dogs.

On the other hand, Vaishali Hegde, appearing for the city corporation, questioned the petitioners’ claim, contending that no one can enter the DRDO township without permission. She argued that the questions of who entered the guarded township, who took away the dogs and where the dogs are now are matters that require investigation.

Meanwhile, State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadheesha told the court that the offences invoked in the FIR may have been erroneously cited, but the investigation should be allowed to continue to ascertain what happened to the 21 dogs, last seen in the DRDO township.

Following these contentions, the court permitted the probe to continue, not on the basis of the loosely invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), but on any offences that may emerge during the investigation. The court directed the Mahadevapura police to submit a probe report by August 11 and adjourned the hearing till then.