Karnataka HC Grants Bail to Accused Charged with Defacing Ambedkar Portrait with Cow Dung

The Karnataka High Court set aside a Sessions Court bail refusal and released two men accused of defacing a portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar under the SC/ST (POA) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Justice S. Rachaiah, sitting singly at the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 29 June 2026 allowed a criminal appeal filed by two accused and set aside the bail refusal order dated 14 May 2026 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The two appellants — M. Ajay Kumar and Madhu, both residents of Chikkathaggalli Village, Hoskote Taluk — had been in judicial custody since 28 April 2026, charged with defacing a portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar with cow dung. The court found it appropriate to grant bail on conditions that address the State's concerns about witness interference and continued criminal conduct.

The Charges and the Arrest

Crime No. 91/2026 was registered by Hoskote Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, on 26 April 2026. The appellants are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused No. 1, M. Ajay Kumar, is the son of accused No. 3; accused No. 2, Madhu, is the nephew of accused No. 3. All three belong to the Reddy community.

The complaint was initially registered against unknown persons. During investigation, the police traced the appellants, recorded their statements, and placed them in judicial custody. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 3(1)(t) of the SC/ST (POA) Act deals with intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public place. The appeal was filed under Section 14A(2) of the same Act, which provides the route to challenge a Sessions Court's order refusing bail in such cases.

Investigation was stated to be still in progress at the time the appeal was heard.

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for the appellants, Sri Ganesh G.G., argued that the appellants are innocent and that no witnesses had seen the incident. He attributed the complaint to enmity between the complainant and the appellants arising from petty local disputes, including a dispute over property allotted to the wife of respondent No. 2. Accused No. 3, an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, had reportedly questioned the validity of a shed being constructed on land meant for common village use. Counsel also pointed out that the appellants are earning members of their families and have been in custody since 28 April 2026, and that they are willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The High Court Government Pleader, Sri M.V. Anoop Kumar, opposed bail. He submitted that defacing the portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — whom he described as the Father of the Constitution of India — is not merely an offence against a particular person but against the nation as a whole, and that the gravity of the act made it inappropriate to grant relief.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Rachaiah examined the complaint, the case diary, and the statement of the eye-witness recorded during investigation. The eye-witness statement indicated that the appellants and accused No. 3 defaced the portrait by throwing cow dung, and that the eye-witness stated he had identified those persons. The court noted, however, that the eye-witness had not disclosed this information immediately, as he was travelling to Bangalore at the time.

The court acknowledged the gravity and nature of the offence. It did not discount the prosecution's case. The decisive factor, in the court's view, was that the appellants had already been in judicial custody since 28 April 2026, and that bail conditions could be crafted to address the prosecution's apprehensions about witness tampering and continuation of similar conduct.

The court stated that it is appropriate to grant bail to the appellants by imposing suitable bail conditions that will take care of apprehension of the prosecution.

Outcome

The Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2026 was allowed. The order dated 14 May 2026 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, was set aside. Both appellants were directed to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 91/2026 subject to the following conditions:

• Each appellant shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) with one surety each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
• The appellants shall not threaten prosecution witnesses.
• The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing.
• The appellants shall not hamper court proceedings.
• The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court until disposal of the case.
• The appellants shall not involve themselves in any other criminal case or similar cases until disposal of the present case.