The top court refused to accept the submission of the counsel appearing for the accused that the bullets were fired at the dog as it was "furious" and was attacking him.
"You had fired gunshots to scare the dog? You are saying that the incident is of a dog barking and you fired at the dog," a vacation bench of Justices AM Sapre and SK Kaul shot back at the counsel.
"Three shots were fired towards the complainant (dog's owner). He had sustained injuries. The dog had died. There is no question of anticipatory bail. You surrender first," the bench told the counsel representing petitioner Pratibh Sharma.
Mr Sharma's counsel contended before the court that the dog was furious and was attacking Mr Sharma and others, because of which he had to fire in the air to scare the dog.
To this, the top court said "who are you? Why were you carrying a gun? You had fired at the dog and the man (owner) was hit. Three bullets were fired at the man."
The petitioner had approached the top court against an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing his anticipatory bail plea in the case lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
According to the police, a case was lodged in December 2016 at Budhlada police station in Mansa district of Punjab on a complaint filed by the dog's owner that Mr Sharma and some others had fired at his pet.
The police said that when the dog's owner protested the canine's death due to the shot fired by one Nikhil Sharma, three shots were fired at him in which one bullet hit him on the waist.
It alleged that Pratibh Sharma had fired a shot from his gun in the air, after which the dog had started barking.
Nikhil Sharma then fired at the dog from his revolver due to which the canine died.