Telangana High Court Orders Interim Stay On Detention Of Allegedly 'Ferocious' German Shepherd Dog

“There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the letter dated 19.06.2024 of respondent No.3 the Sub Inspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, subject to condition that the petitioner's pet dog 'Zorro' shall be accompanied by the petitioner or her family members at all times,” the Court said.

The order was passed by Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy in a Writ petition filed by the owner of the dog, Dr. Lokdeep Sharma.

Background:

The petitioner contended that Zorro is a well-trained, obedient, vaccinated and friendly dog, who has never on any previous occasion hurt another.

On 13th June, when the petitioner was taking his dog for a walk, Zorro saw another pet dog on the street, broke his leash, and ran towards the dog excitedly in a playful manner. The petitioner pressed that although the interaction was friendly, the owner of the other dog sustained injuries and registered a complaint with the Police.

An FIR was registered under section 289 of the IPC (punishment for the animal in the care of one, hurting another). Following this, the SHO of the PS addressed a letter to the Deputy Director, veterinary section to take custody of the dog on account of it being ferocious.

Subsequently, certain government veterinary doctors visited the petitioner's house to determine whether the dog was ferocious and concluded that the dog was friendly. Despite the said finding, on 24^th certain police officials came to the house of the petitioner attempting to take custody of Zorro. After many failed attempts, the police officials left without the dog.

Fearing that authorities would try to illegally impound Zorro again, the petitioner approached the Court.

Arguments advanced:

The petitioner contended that under the protection of section 289, the officials could not detain the animal and the section only imposed punishment on the owner.

It was also argued that the 'Pet Dog Guidelines, 2015' issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India, stipulate that under no circumstance should any action lead to the abandonment of a pet animal.

It was said that the 2015 Guidelines also distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable claims and lawful and unlawful claims.

“Removing the pet dog from its owners without proper evidence of ferocity or nuisance, based merely on a personal vendetta and unsubstantiated allegations, contravenes constitutional principles. Such separation would cause severe mental distress to the Petitioner and their family, and the pet dog,” it was contended.

Thus, the directions to take custody of the animal were stayed and the matter was posted to 18-07-2024.

Case title: Dr. Lokdeep Sharma vs. State of Telangana

Case no: WP 16356 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: Shreya Devaki

Counsel for the respondent: GP for Home

Click Here To Read/Download Order