Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Tying Footwear To Ambedkar And Jagjeevan Ram Photos After Charge Sheet Filed

The appellant challenged the Sessions Court’s order rejecting his bail application in Special Case No. 73/2026

The prosecution alleged that, between the night of 1 March and the morning of 2 March 2026, he tied footwear to photographs of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Babu Jagjivan Ram in Gulaguli village, intending to cause communal disturbance

A case was registered under Sections 196(1)(a), 352 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Arrested on 3 March 2026, the appellant had remained in judicial custody for approximately six months; the charge sheet had been filed, and the appellant was stated to have no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed release, citing the alleged offence and the risk of similar conduct.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the Sessions Court’s order.

The alleged offences were under Sections 196(1)(a), 352 and 353(2) of the BNS and Section 3(1)(t) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court relied on the case-specific bail considerations that the charge sheet had been filed, custodial interrogation was no longer required, the appellant had spent about six months in judicial custody, and he had no criminal antecedents.

No precedent or broader bail test was cited.

The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s concern that the appellant might commit similar offences, but found that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, so further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

It also weighed the appellant’s approximately six months in custody and lack of criminal antecedents, and concluded that those circumstances justified release on bail.

The Court addressed the risks of release through conditions restricting travel, prohibiting witness tampering or threats, and requiring attendance before the Investigating Officer or Court and regular attendance at trial.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like sum, restrictions on leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, compliance with directions to appear, and regular attendance at trial; breach could result in an application for cancellation of bail.