PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R
TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7003 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INDIA,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
F 110, 1ST FLOOR, JAGDAMBA TOWER,
PLOT NO 13, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110092,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
SINCHANA SUBRAMANYAN.
…PETITIONER











(BY SRI Y SANKEERTH VITTAL, ADVOCATE A/W

Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
SMT. SOUMYA NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE PEENYA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.

2. RAMESH,
S/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


R/A NO. 16, THIPPENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
WIPRO LAYOUT, DODDABIDARAKALLU,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-560073.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI ABHISHEK.R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS OF CR.NO.89 OF 2026
PENDING BEFORE THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU; B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.04.2026 IN CR NO.89/2026 PASSED BY THE XXXI ADDL.CJM
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (‘PETA’ for short), are at the doors of this Court calling
in question an order dated 25.04.2026, passed by the XXXI
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, by which an
application filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 497 and
503 of the BNSS, seeking an interim custody of the dogs, which
were in the custody of the petitioner, in Crime No.89/2026,

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


registered for the offences under Sections 325 and 62 of the
BNS and Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 (‘PCA Act’ for short) comes to be allowed.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner – PETA is said to have received an
information (oral) that the dogs that were in the possession of
respondent No.2 totally 9 in number are being indiscriminately
beaten, treated indiscriminately, causing heinous assault as
also sexual abuse. On the said oral complaint, on 15.02.2026,
the petitioner registers a complaint before the jurisdictional
police against respondent No.2 for subjecting 9 dogs i.e. , 6
Golden Retriever dogs and 3 Shih Tzu dogs to repeated assault,
sexual abuse, gross neglect and illegal breeding at his
residence. Based upon the said complaint by PETA, a crime
comes to be registered in Crime No.89/2026 for the afore-
quoted offences punishable under Sections 325 and 62 of the
BNS and Section 11(1) of the PCA Act. The investigation
commences on 18.02.2026 and the Investigating Officer is said
to have written to several animal organisations for taking care

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


of the dogs or requesting the custody and rehabilitation of the
dogs rescued from the hands of respondent No.2. The issue is
not with regard to the merit of the matter.

3. During the investigation, respondent No.2 files an
application under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking
interim custody of the dogs taken away by the Investigating
Officer and in the custody of the petitioner, pending disposal of
the case. The concerned Court in terms of the impugned order
dated 25.04.2026, directed the petitioner – PETA to release the
dogs in favour of respondent No.2. It is this order that is called
in question by the petitioner - PETA before this Court, in the
subject petition.

4. Heard Sri Y. Sankeerth Vittal, learned counsel along
with Smt. Soumya Nair and Sri Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Abhishek R.
Huddar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.


- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER – PETA :
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that it is the first of the case where the
concerned Court, despite the grave allegations made against
the said owner of the dogs of beating, assault and sexual
abuse, has directed the release of the dogs in favour of the
perpetrator. The learned counsel would submit that if the dogs
are being ill-treated by the owner, it should be under the
custody of the organizations, which take care and rehabilitate
those dogs. They rehabilitate the rescued dogs from the hands
of the accused in normal circumstance.
SECOND RESPONDENT - THE ACCUSED :
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would
however seek to refute the submissions contending that
respondent No.2 lives alone and therefore, he has reared 9
dogs, 6 Golden Retriever and 3 Shih Tzu. He submits that
respondent No.2 is taking care of the dogs very well and there
is no warrant of interference with the impugned order passed

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


by the concerned Court as the dogs are hail and healthy with
him and all the other allegations are a figment of imagination of
the petitioner – PETA, as there is no written complaint by any
person to the petitioner - PETA. The learned counsel submits
that the order would not warrant any interference at the hands
of this Court.
THE STATE:
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondent No.1 would toe the lines of the learned counsel for
petitioner in contending that the dogs must be in a place where
they are rehabilitated appropriately and seeks to allow the
application.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have perused the material on record.





- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


CONSIDERATION:

9. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the
sustainability of the order of the concerned Court requires
consideration.

10. To resolve the issue that falls for consideration, a
brief traversal through the factual backdrop becomes
necessary. Respondent No.2 claims ownership over nine dogs,
comprising six Golden Retriever dogs and three Shih Tzu dogs.
Grave allegations have surfaced that these animals were
subjected to persistent cruelty, including brutal physical assault
and even acts of sexual abuse. These disturbing allegations are
stated to have emanated from oral information furnished by a
neighbour of respondent No.2 to PETA India. Acting upon such
information, one of the representatives of the petitioner lodged
a complaint before the jurisdictional police, alleging shocking
and blatant acts of cruelty perpetrated upon the dogs in the
custody of respondent No.2. The complaint, in essence,
paints a deeply disturbing portrait of sustained abuse,

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


neglect and unlawful breeding operations. The complaint
reads as follows:
“To,
The SHO
Peenya Police Station

Subject: Complaint against brutal beating and illegal
breeding of dogs in Bengaluru, Karnataka, for violation of
animal protection laws

MOST URGENT

"I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals India (PETA India), the country's
best-known animal rights organisation, to bring to your
attention information regarding a dog breeder and seller
in Bengaluru, Karnataka.

We have received a complaint regarding a
breeder who breeds and sells dogs. It has been
reported that this breeder is breeding 09 dogs
based on information received from a reporter,
there are six Golden Retrievers and three Shihtzus
at the location mentioned below who are
reportedly being subjected to ongoing abuse and
neglect. The dogs are allegedly beaten daily with
sticks, pipes, and whips, sometimes with such
force that the objects break. They are frequently
heard crying in distress. We have also received a
video clearly showing the two Golden Retrievers
being beaten on 14 February 2026. The concerned
citizen who filmed the incident confronted the
individual on two occasions. The animals are being
kept in severely inadequate and unhygienic
conditions. Additionally, the man has been accused
of sexually assaulting female dogs, as reported by
a concerned citizen. These allegations indicate
serious violations involving cruelty, physical abuse,
neglect, and sexual exploitation of animals,
necessitating urgent intervention.


- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


The Google Maps location of the breeder's premises can
be accessed here:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uW8vGdc9mJjozUTT6

It has been alleged that this breeder is not registered
with the Karnataka Animal Welfare Board (KAWB) as
either a breeder or pet shop, rendering its operations
illegal.

As you may know, facilities that engage in the boarding,
breeding or selling of animals are required to be
registered with the state animal welfare board, in this
case the KAWB, as mandated under Rule 3 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and
Marketing) Rules, 2017, and Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018, framed under The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. Rule
2(1)(c) of Dog Breeding and Marketing Rules, 2017
defines "breeder" as "an individual or group of persons
who own pet animals and dogs of specific breeds for
breeding and sale of dogs and pups and includes
boarding kennel operators, intermediate handlers and
traders". Rule 2(1) (d) of the Dog Breeding and
Marketing Rules, 2017 and Pet Shop Rules, 2018 defines
"boarding kennel operator" as "an individual or group of
persons that keep pet dogs and pups for temporary
housing in a kennel or any other establishment". Rule
2(1)(k) of the Pet Shop Rules, 2018 defines a 'pet shop'.

This facility falls into the category of a dog breeding
centre and a pet shop. Therefore, they ought to have
been registered with the KAWB. Violation of Rules framed
under the PCA Act, 1960, is an offence under Section
38(3) of the Act.

A letter dated 25 January 2020 from the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of
India, states that as per Notifications dated 23 May 2017
and 6 September 2018, all individuals or institutions
engaged in dog breeding, marketing, or operating pet
shops must register with the Karnataka Animal Welfare
Board under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog
Breeding and Marketing Rules, 2017, and Pet Shop
Rules, 2018) before obtaining licenses from local

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


authorities. They are required to submit Form I with the
necessary documents and registration fee within 30 days
of this notice, failing which action will be taken under the
PCA Act and Rules. The letter dated 25 January 2020 is
attached as Annexure II.

Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to an
order dated 26 May 2020 (Annexure III) issued by the
then Commissioner of the Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services Department, Government of
Karnataka. The order concerns the ban on operations of
unregistered dog breeding centres and pet shops in the
state. Addressed to all district collectors and chairs of the
district SPCAS, it mandates that ail unregistered pet
shops and dog breeding establishments not registered
with the KAWB be banned from operating under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and
Marketing) Rules, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018.

Section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960, makes it the duty
of persons having charge of animals to ensure that
animals under their ownership or supervision are
not subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.
Furthermore, Section 11 of the Act defines the acts
that are considered to constitute cruelty to
animals. Section 11(1)(a) prohibits beating,
kicking, torturing or treating any animal in such a
manner so as to subject them to unnecessary pain
and suffering. Sections 11(1)(e) and 11(1)(f)
make it punishable to keep animals confined and
tethered for unreasonably long hours Section
11(1)(I) makes mutilating any animal a punishable
and cognisable offence. The dogs on the premises
were found in a deeply concerning condition. They
were confined to cages without regular
opportunities for exercise or walks, left
unsupervised overnight, and not provided with
food at appropriate times. These circumstances
raise serious welfare concerns and require
immediate attention to ensure the animals' health
and well-being, which constitute cruelty as defined
under this Section.

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


Considering the circumstances, I urge you to treat this
matter with extreme urgency and take immediate action
against the illegal breeder by implementing the following
measures:

1. Engage with the owner and management of the illegal
breeding facility and pet shop to address these
violations.

2. Close down the facility for its violations of the laws
mentioned above and constitute a committee to inspect
the facility thoroughly, including conducting a
comprehensive health assessment of all animals housed
there. This should include the preparation of a
panchnama to document the breeds and total number of
animals in their posession.

3. Considering the cruel conditions in which the dogs are
being kept, issue a notice directing the immediate
discontinuation of any sale of animals until the facility is
registered with the KAWB. Furthermore, no certificate of
registration or license should not be granted to the
accused-whether individually or jointly-under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and
Marketing) Rules, 2017, or the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2018, as mandated under Rule
4(7)(b) and Rule 4(9)(b) of the respective Rules.

4. Issue a notice under Section 168 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, restraining the breeder
from acquiring any additional animals, given the absence
of a certificate of registration from the KAWB and
adequate space to house more animals.

The video evidence of showing the dog being
assaulted has been submitted in a pendrive. This is
a offence under Section 62 read with Section 325
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for
attempting to maim the dog.

The killing of any animal is a grave and serious
offence and Section 325 of the BNS 2023 which
makes the act of killing or maiming of any animal
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to five years, or with fine or both.

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


Attempt to commit a cognizable offence is
punishable under Section 62 of BNS.

Furthermore, Section 11(1) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 defines acts
that will be considered to be cruel to animals and
make the same punishable under the law. Section
11(1) (a) prohibits the beating, kicking, torturing
or treating of any animal in a manner so as to
subject to unnecessary pain and suffering.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this important
matter. Should you have any questions, I can be
contacted at 6362558008.”

(Emphasis added)
The complaint (supra) discloses allegations of
extraordinary cruelty: that the dogs were routinely
beaten with sticks, pipes and whips, often with such
savage force that the implements themselves broke; that
the animals cried in agony; that they were confined in
deplorable and unhygienic surroundings; and that the
female dogs were allegedly subjected to sexual
exploitation. Such allegations, if true, reveal conduct
that is not merely unlawful but profoundly antithetical to
every civilizational notion of compassion and humane
coexistence.

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


11. The complaint further alleged that the breeding
facility was operating in patent violation of statutory mandates
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the
Rules framed thereunder, without registration before the
Karnataka Animal Welfare Board. It therefore sought immediate
intervention by the police to rescue the animals, halt further
breeding, and ensure the institution of protective measures to
safeguard their welfare.

12. During the course of investigation—and indeed even
prior to its substantial commencement—the petitioner, PETA
India, is stated to have taken custody of the rescued dogs from
the hands of the Investigating Officer. What assumes
considerable significance is that respondent No.2 himself
executed formal deeds of relinquishment, voluntarily
surrendering ownership and custody of all nine dogs in favour
of the petitioner. These relinquishment deeds are not mere
formal papers; they contain admissions of striking
gravity. Respondent No.2 expressly acknowledged that
he had subjected the animals to cruelty by beating them

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


with sticks and pipes to the point of causing severe
injury and immense suffering. He further admitted his
incapacity to care for the animals and unequivocally
relinquished every future claim, title or ownership over them.
The relinquishment deed executed for the release of three
dogs, reads as follows:
“ ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN


1. I, Ramesh N, S/o Erappa, Aged about 43 years,
resident of (A1)/No. 16, Thippenalli Main Road,
Wipro Layout Doddabidarakallu Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru City Karnataka, the owner of the Dogs (2
male and 1 female Golden Retrievers), hereby
declare that I voluntarily give up and relinquish the
ownership and custody of 3 dogs in favour of People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India.

2. I further state that we are willingly Surrendering our
animals to Manoj Prakash of PETA India due the
cruelty inflicted by me on the dogs and my
incapacity to look after them. I also admit that I
have treated my dogs cruelly by beating them with
sticks and pipes to a point that the pipe breaks
which has inflicted severe harm and caused
immense suffering to them. I state that the animals
are injured, in bad shape and that as their guardian
I have failed in ensuring their safety and protection.
I am handing over 3 dogs to PETA India. I agree that
I shall have no ownership or claim over the said 3
dogs once handed over in custody and favour of
PETA India.

3. I undertake that PETA India would herein forward be
considered as the owner of the above mentioned
dogs. I also undertake and agree that the veterinary
and overall care of the dogs will also be the
responsibility of PETA India and I will not interfere in
any decision taken by PETA India regarding the

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


housing, adoption and treatment/euthanasia of the
dogs.

4. There is no monetary transaction involved in the said
surrender of the dogs.
Place: Bangalore

Date : 25.02.2026.

Name and signature of witness 1:
Sd/-

Name and signature of witness 2:
Sd/-

Place: Bengaluru.

Date: 26-Feb-2026

AFFIDAVIT

ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN


1. I Ramesh N s/o Erappa , resident of (A1)/NO 16,
Thippenalli Main Road, Wipro Layout
Doddebidarakallu Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru City
Karnataka , the owner of the dogs (Golden
Retriever) hereby declare that I voluntarily give up
and relinquish the ownership and custody of 3 dogs
in favour of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) India.


2. I further state that we are willingly surrendering our
animals to Manoj Prakash of PETA India due the
cruelty inflicted by me on the dogs and my
incapacity to look after them. I also admit that I
have treated my dogs cruelly by beating them with
sticks and pipes to a point that the pipe breaks
which has inflicted severe harm and caused
immense suffering to them. I state that the animals
are injured, in bad shape and that as their guardian
I have failed in ensuring their safety and protection.
I am handing over 3 dogs to PETA India. I agree that
I shall have no ownership or claim over the said 3

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


dogs once handed over in custody and favour of
PETA India.


3. I undertake that PETA India would herein forward be
considered as the owner of the above mentioned
dogs. I also undertake and agree that the veterinary
and overall care of the dogs will also be the
responsibility of PETA India and I will not interfere in
any decision taken by PETA India regarding the
housing, adoption and treatment/euthanasia of the
dogs.


4. There is no monetary transaction involved in the said
surrender of the dogs.

Relinquishing owner's signature(s):
Sd/-

Signature of the representative of PETA India:
Sd/-“


12.1. The relinquishment deed executed for the release of
six dogs, reads as follows:

“ ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

1. I, Ramesh N, S/o Erappa, Aged about 43 years,
resident of (A1)/No. 16, Thippenalli Main Road,
Wipro Layout Doddabidarakallu Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru City Karnataka, the owner of the Dogs (3
Female Golden Retrievers, Two male and one female
Shihtzu hereby declare that I voluntarily give up and
relinquish the ownership and custody of 6 dogs in
favour of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) India.

2. I further state that we are willingly Surrendering our
animals to Manoj Prakash of PETA India due the
cruelty inflicted by me on the dogs and my
incapacity look after them. I also admit that I have
treated my dogs cruelly by beating them with sticks

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


and pipes to a point that the pipe breaks which has
inflicted severe harm and caused immense suffering
to them. I state that the animals are injured, in bad
shape and that as their guardian I have failed in
ensuring their safety and protection. I am handing
over 6 dogs to PETA India. I agree that I shall have
no ownership or claim over the said 6 dogs once
handed over in custody and favour of PETA India.

3. I undertake that PETA India would herein forward be
considered as the owner of the above mentioned
dogs. I also undertake and agree that the veterinary
and overall care of the dogs will also be the
responsibility of PETA India and I will not interfere in
any decision taken by PETA India regarding the
housing, adoption and treatment/euthanasia of the
dogs.

4. There is no monetary transaction involved in the said
surrender of the dogs.

Place: Bangalore

Date: 26.02.2026.

Name and signature of witness 1:
Sd/-

Name and signature of witness 2:
Sd/-

Place: Bengaluru.

Date: 26-Feb-2026

AFFIDAVIT

ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN


1. I Ramesh N s/o Erappa , resident of (A1)/ NO 16,
Thippenalli Main Road. Wipro Layout
Doddabidarakallu Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru City
Karnataka the owner of the dogs (3 Golden
Retrievers, 3 Shitzu) , hereby declare that I

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


voluntarily give up and refinquish the ownership and
custody of 6 dogs in favour of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) India.


2. I further state that we are willingly surrendering our
animals to Manoj Prakash of PETA India due the
cruelty inflicted by me on the dogs and my
incapacity to look after them. I also admit that I
have treated my dogs cruelly by beating them with
sticks and pipes to a point that the pipe breaks
which has inflicted severe harm and caused
immense suffering to them. I state that the animals
are injured, in bad shape and that as their guardian
I have failed in ensuring their safety and protection.
I am handing over 6 dogs to PETA India. I agree that
I shall have no ownership or claim over the said 6
dogs once handed over in custody and favour of
PETA India.


3. I undertake that PETA India would herein forward be
considered as the owner of the above mentioned
dogs. I also undertake and agree that the veterinary
and overall care of the dogs will also be the
responsibility of PETA India and I will not interfere in
any decision taken by PETA India regarding the
housing, adoption and treatment/euthanasia of the
dogs.


4. There is no monetary transaction involved in the said
surrender of the dogs.

Relinquishing owner's signature(s):
Sd/-

Signature of the representative of PETA India:
Sd/-”

The language employed in the relinquishment deeds is
stark and self-incriminatory. Respondent No.2 not only
admitted to cruelty, but also declared that the animals were

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


injured, in poor condition, and that he had failed in his duty as
their guardian to ensure their safety, care and protection. By
these deeds, he transferred complete custodial and proprietary
interest in the animals to the petitioner, vesting in it full
authority over their treatment, rehabilitation, adoption, housing
and welfare.
13. Despite such relinquishment, respondent No.2
thereafter approached the concerned Court by filing an
application under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, seeking
interim custody of the very dogs that had been rescued and
entrusted to the petitioner. Astonishingly, the concerned Court,
while considering the said application, directed the petitioner to
hand over all nine dogs—six Golden Retriever dogs and three
Shih Tzu dogs—to respondent No.2 pending disposal of the
proceedings. The impugned order reads as follows:
“ ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION
497 & 503 OF BNSS
This is an application filed by the petitioner under
section 497 & 503 of BNSS seeking the interim custody of
dogs described in the table below.
Perused the application, report of I.O. and
objections of prosecution.

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to
be imposed by this court. The following are particulars of
petitioner, property claimed & etc...

In support of his arguments, the learned counsel
for petitioner has furnished the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in (1998) 6.SCC 520: 1998 SCC Online SC 557 –
Manager Pinjrapole Deudar & Anr. V/s Chakram Moraii
Nat & Ors wherein it has been observed that:
9. In view of the above discussion and provisions of
Section 451 Cr.P.C., it appears to us that unless the
owner of the animal in respect of which he is facing
prosecution, is deprived of the custody (which can be
done only on his conviction under the Act for the
second time), no bar can be inferred against him to
claim interim custody of the animal.
Further, the learned counsel for petitioner has furnished the
copy of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Criminal Petition No. 100024/2024 in the case of Vittal
Sathyppa Pujeri & Anr. V/s The State of Karnataka, wherein

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra has
been discussed.
Herein the petitioner being accused is claiming
the above said dogs. First of all it is to be noted here
that there is no rival claim. The dogs claimed appears
to have been seized from the possession of
petitioner/accused and reported to court under above
said PFs. Hence considering the facts and
circumstances of case, so also keeping in mind the
observation laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
supra, the claim of petitioner in respect of release of
dogs may be considered. The apprehension raised by
prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing suitable
conditions. In the result. I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The 3 Golden Retriever Dogs and also 3 Golden
Retriever Dogs & 3 Shih Tzu Dogs seized by Peenya
Police and reported to court under PF No.44
J J
( )/2026, 50( ) / 2026 are hereby ordered to be
released to the interim custody of petitioner, subject
to following conditions.
CONDITIONS
1) The petitioner shall execute indemnity bond for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, with one surety for like sum.
2) The Petitioner shall not alienate or transfer the dogs,
till disposal of the case.
3) The Petitioner shall not change the nature,
identification of dogs, till disposal of the case.
4) The Petitioner shall produce the dogs as and when
called by the Police & Court during trial.
5) The petitioner shall not subject the dogs to cruelty in
any manner.
6) The petitioner shall see that the dogs are kept in the
place where there is C.C. T.V. coverage, and shall
furnish the C.C. T.V. footage of dogs, once in 15 days,
to the Court without fail, till filing of final report.

- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


7) The I.O. shall arrange for taking the photographs of
dogs in different angles at the cost of petitioner, under
due panchanama, before releasing the same and
produce photographs, CD/Negatives, before the Court,
after attesting the photographs by two witnesses, along
with Certificate of Photographer as required under
Section 63 of the BSA.
Office is directed to issue release order of dogs in favour
of petitioner after compliance of condition No.1 & 7 stated
above.”

(Emphasis added)
A mere perusal of the afore-quoted order sends a
palpable shock to the conscience of this Court. The reasoning of
the learned Magistrate appears to have proceeded in complete
disregard of a foundational principle of civilized jurisprudence—
that ethical treatment of animals.
14. The sequence of events presents a troubling
incongruity: a person who, by his own written admission,
acknowledged inflicting cruelty and voluntarily
surrendered all rights over the animals, was
nevertheless restored interim custody of those very
animals by judicial order. It is this startling and deeply
disquieting circumstance that has propelled the
petitioner to the doors of this Court.

- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR



15. In the teeth of such compelling material, this Court
finds itself unable to fathom how the concerned Court could
have directed the return of the dogs to the very person alleged
to have perpetrated the cruelty. The investigation is still in
progress against respondent No.2, who faces not merely
allegations of physical assault upon the animals but also
accusations of sexual abuse—allegations which, if true, reveal a
degree of depravity that would shock even the most hardened
conscience.

16. In such circumstances, an order restoring interim
custody of the rescued dogs to respondent No.2 is, to say the
least, wholly preposterous. It suffers not merely from legal
infirmity but from a grave failure of judicial sensitivity. Such an
order stands in direct conflict with the very object of the law
meant to shield vulnerable beings from cruelty. Therefore, the
order of the concerned Court directing the return of the dogs to
respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to survive even for a

- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


moment in the eye of law. It deserves, and must meet,
complete obliteration.

17. Before I say omega to this order, it would not
be inept to refer that animals though bereft of human
speech are not bereft of sentience, suffering or the
capacity to experience pain. The law in its civilizational
wisdom has long ceased to view animals as mere
chattels existing solely for human utility; they are not .
The law now recognizes the animals also to be as living
beings entitled to dignity, compassion and protection
from cruelty. The measure of a civilized society is often
reflected not merely as to how it treats its fellow
humans, but as to how it extends mercy and justice to
the voiceless creatures that inhabit in its shared world.
Therefore, every act of cruelty against an animal is not
merely an injury to a sentient being, but a blemish upon
the collective human conscience. Protection of animal
life therefore, is not an act of charity, it is an affirmation
of constitutional morality and recognition that the arc of

- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31535
CRL.P No. 7003 of 2026

HC-KAR


justice must extend even to those who cannot knock at
the doors of this Court by themselves .

18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER :

a. The criminal petition is allowed.

b. The impugned order dated 25.04.2026, passed by the
XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is
quashed and stands consigned to obliteration.

c. The 9 rescued dogs (6 Golden Retriever dogs and 3
Shih Tzu dogs), presently under the care, custody and
protection of petitioner - PETA, shall continue to
remain wherever they are, under its guardianship.
PETA – petitioner shall ensure their continued
rehabilitation, medical care and welfare, subject to the
ultimate result of the investigation.
Ordered accordingly.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

NVJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12