High Court Ruling on Missing Dogs at DRDO Campus
The Karnataka High Court has taken a significant step by allowing the continuation of an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) township in Bengaluru. This decision comes after a previous stay on the investigation concerning two DRDO officials, as per the court order dated March 25, which questioned the involvement of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in the case.
Details of the Court’s Decision
On June 23, Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that the investigation should proceed, but solely regarding offenses substantiated by the probe, rather than those weakly alleged in the First Information Report (FIR). Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “In light of the submissions and contra submissions, it is prudent to permit the investigation for offenses that genuinely emerge from the probe.”
Interim Relief for Accused Officials
The interim order was passed following a petition by two DRDO estate officers implicated in a criminal case registered earlier in March. The court granted them interim relief, prohibiting any coercive action against them while directing their cooperation in the investigation. Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that these officers should not face harassment or coercive measures during the investigation, which is to be completed within six weeks with a report submitted to the High Court before being presented to the jurisdictional court. The next hearing is scheduled for August 11.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the disappearance of 21 dogs from the DRDO campus on March 9, raising concerns about their fate. The complaint alleged unethical removal of the animals, leading to the booking of two estate officers and an unknown accused. The High Court stayed the investigation in March, prompting a request to vacate the interim order.
Arguments from Legal Representatives
Representing the petitioners, Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath contended that the charges against the estate officers were unfounded and unrelated, highlighting a WhatsApp message indicating the transfer of three dogs from the DRDO housing complex on March 6 and a BBMP official’s visit on March 7. Kamath argued that the officers could not be held liable merely due to their association with the campus.
More Read
BBMP counsel Vaishali Hegde opposed the plea, emphasizing that access to the DRDO premises is restricted and questioning how the dogs were removed and their current whereabouts. She alleged the operation of illegal dog catchers in residential areas.
State’s Position on Investigation
State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh supported the continuation of the investigation, acknowledging possible misapplication of charges but asserting the necessity to uncover the truth about the missing dogs. He mentioned available CCTV footage potentially showing how the dogs were handled, suggesting that DRDO officials might eventually serve as witnesses rather than accused.
Justice Nagaprasanna, affirming the need for an investigation, remarked, “It absolutely needs investigation. We will see what is your role as an accused or witness, but investigation is a must.” The court has thus ordered the probe to continue, aiming to resolve the perplexing case of the missing dogs.
