Karnataka HC allows police to file chargesheet on disappearance of 21 stray dogs from DRDO township

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday permitted the Mahadevapura Police to file a chargesheet in connection with the disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) township in Bengaluru [Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Another v. State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna heard a petition filed by DRDO Estate Manager Rakesh Kumar Sahu and DRDO Cleaning Supervisor TG Sudhakar.

During the hearing, the Court was informed that the investigation into the disappearance of the dogs had been completed and that the police proposed to file the chargesheet against Sudhakar and others.

Appearing for Sahu, Advocate V Vinay said that his client, who had initially been arrayed as accused No.1, had been dropped from the chargesheet. He requested that the Court record that proceedings against accused No.1 had been dropped.

State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh confirmed that the DRDO Estate Manager had been left out of the chargesheet.

"DRDO Estate Manager we have left. The chargesheet is laid against DRDO Cleaning Supervisor T G Sudhakar and others," the SPP submitted.

The Court accordingly permitted the chargesheet to be filed before the concerned trial court.

Advocate Vaishali Hegde, appearing for the Assistant Director of the Animal Husbandry Division, who filed the complaint on the missing stray dogs, submitted that she intended to file a protest petition under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). She submitted that she had been informed that the chargesheet was a "highly diluted" one and that several sections had been deleted.

The Bench, however, declined to entertain her submission as an impleading applicant, as it was a criminal petition and not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

"No. The impleading applicant can get the copy. This is not a PIL. I told you on the last occasion itself," the Court observed.

On March 9, 2026, around 21 stray dogs that used to roam the internal roads of the DRDO campus went missing and could not be traced. A complaint was subsequently lodged alleging that the dogs had been taken away in an unethical manner. Two DRDO estate officers and another person, who was initially shown as an unknown accused, were booked in connection with the incident.

The High Court had earlier intervened in the matter and questioned the manner in which the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had become involved in the issue. On March 25, the Court had stayed the investigation insofar as the two DRDO officials were concerned. Subsequently, by its June 23 order, the Court permitted the investigation to continue while granting interim protection to the two officials.

The Court had directed that no coercive action be taken against them and that they should not be harassed on any ground. At the same time, the officials were directed to cooperate with the investigation so that the authorities could arrive at the truth regarding the disappearance of the dogs.