The Karnataka High Court recently permitted the continuance of an investigation into the disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) township in Bengaluru [Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Another Vs State of Karnataka].

The Court had earlier stayed the probe in so far as two accused DRDO officials were concerned by an order passed on March 25. This was after the Court raised questions about how the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had intervened in the matter.

In the latest order passed on June 23, Justice M Nagaprasanna has now directed that the investigation into the disappearance of the dogs should proceed.

The Court, however, adding that the probe should be only in respect of offences that are ultimately borne out by the probe and not on the basis of offences loosely laid in the FIR.

“Therefore, in the light of the submissions, contra submissions and the submissions of the SPP, I deem it appropriate to permit investigation. Not for all the offences that are loosely laid, but offences that would really come about, and that would truly come about on investigation," the Court said.

The Court passed the interim order on a plea filed by two DRDO estate officers arraigned as accused in a criminal case registered in the matter in March this year.

By its June 23 order, the Court granted them interim relief, directing that no coercive action be taken for now against the two DRDO estate officers. The Court ordered that they shall not be harassed, nor coercive steps taken against them on whatsoever ground. The Court also directed them to cooperate with the investigation to help the prosecution arrive at the truth.

It further directed that the investigation report be filed before the High Court before it is placed before the jurisdictional court. The exercise is to be completed within six weeks.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 11.

The Court noted that the case arose from a very strange circumstance involving a sprawling DRDO campus in Bengaluru, where several stray dogs lived. According to the order, on March 9 this year, about 21 dogs that roamed the internal roads of the campus went missing and have not been traced till date.

“The case is of 21 missing dogs which are not found even today,” the Bench observed.

Two estate officers and another person, shown as an unknown accused, were booked after a complaint was lodged alleging that the animals had been taken away in an unethical manner.

Investigation in the case was stayed by the High Court on March , prompting an application seeking vacation of the interim order.

Appearing for the petitioners, Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath argued that the offences invoked against the estate officers — Section 240 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (false evidence), Section 325 (mischief by killing or maiming animals), Section 270 (public nuisance), Section 61(1) (criminal conspiracy) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act — were “preposterous” and had no nexus with the petitioners.

Kamath submitted that a message in a BBMP WhatsApp group indicated that three stray dogs from the second phase of the DRDO housing complex had been shifted on March 6, 2026, and a BBMP official visited the campus on March 7. He contended that the complaint was based only on hearsay and WhatsApp communications.

“There has to be an investigation. Animals cannot be treated with cruelty. They have equal rights and have to survive. But that does not mean you prosecute an officer who is not involved in it,” Kamath argued, adding that the officers could not be held vicariously liable merely because they worked in the campus.

BBMP counsel Vaishali Hegde opposed the plea, contending that no one could enter the DRDO premises without permission and questioning who had entered the campus, removed the dogs and where the animals were presently.

“All we want is let the investigation go on, no coercive action against the petitioners,” she submitted, alleging that illegal dog catchers operated in residential layouts and that some dogs were found stuffed in plastic bags with bleeding injuries.

State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh also supported continuation of the investigation, stating that while some offences invoked may have been erroneously applied, a probe was necessary to determine what had happened to the 21 dogs that were last seen within the DRDO campus.

He submitted that notices had been issued to DRDO and that CCTV footage purportedly depicting the manner in which dogs were dealt with was available for examination. According to him, DRDO officials may ultimately turn out to be witnesses rather than accused.

“It absolutely needs investigation. We will see what is your role as an accused or witness, but investigation is must," Justice Nagaprasanna observed, in response, before eventully ordering the probe to continue.