A 40-year-old Worli resident has been sentenced to four months of rigorous imprisonment after his Husky bit a neighbour in a residential lift. The court held the man guilty of voluntarily causing hurt and negligent handling of an animal, citing a lack of compassion and public concern.
The incident occurred in Alfa Apartments, Worli, when the accused, Rishab Patel, allegedly forced his way into a lift with his pet dog despite requests from his neighbour, Ramik Shah, to wait. Shah, who was travelling with his young son and domestic help, expressed concern that his toddler was afraid of dogs. Patel, ignoring the plea, allegedly dragged the animal into the confined lift space. The Husky bit Shah on his left forearm during the altercation.
Shah later filed a police complaint and sought medical treatment for the injury. During the trial, the court reviewed CCTV footage that captured events leading up to and following the incident. While the footage did not show the actual bite, it corroborated the complainant’s timeline. The footage showed Patel forcefully dragging his dog into the lift, despite visible hesitation and discomfort from Shah and his family.Judicial First-Class Magistrate Suhas P Bhosale observed that Patel’s conduct showed a disregard for both animal welfare and public safety. “The way the accused dragged his pet inside the lift… shows that he is not compassionate towards his own pet. He did not care about the informant, his son, and dragged his own pet… the act resulted in injury,” the court noted in its order.
The court dismissed the defence’s arguments that attempted to highlight inconsistencies in the timeline of medical treatment and questioned the reliability of CCTV evidence. The magistrate affirmed the credibility of the witnesses, including Shah and his domestic help Anuj Singh, who both gave consistent accounts of the incident.The magistrate also rejected the argument that Singh’s testimony was biased due to his employment with the complainant, stating that such a relationship does not automatically undermine credibility when the testimony is otherwise consistent and trustworthy.
In his ruling, the magistrate stressed that owning a pet in an urban setting comes with clear legal and ethical obligations. The deliberate disregard for another resident’s safety in a shared living environment was considered a serious offence. “The accused knew or had reason to believe that his act could cause harm,” the magistrate concluded.The judgement has drawn attention to a growing concern in Indian metros: the conflict between pet ownership and shared civic responsibility in high-density urban housing. As more residents adopt larger dog breeds like Huskies, the need for awareness and enforcement of responsible pet ownership is becoming critical.
While the case may spark debate among pet owners and housing societies, the court’s verdict sends a strong message about accountability. Urban life demands sensitivity not only towards fellow residents but also towards the animals in one’s care. The ruling reinforces that negligence, whether deliberate or indifferent, cannot be overlooked in shared spaces where safety and trust must coexist.
Also Read : Ahmedabad Struggles with Waterborne Diseases
