Karnataka HC Grants Bail to Men Who Assaulted Lodge Owner Over “CSK” Name After IPL Match

Two accused arrested for assaulting a Tumakuru lodge owner over his establishment's name following an IPL match win bail from the Karnataka High Court after the Sessions Court rejected their application.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has granted regular bail to two men accused of assaulting the proprietor of a Tumakuru lodge named “CSK Comforts,” allegedly because they took offence at the name following an IPL match between RCB and GT teams. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, sitting singly, allowed Criminal Petition No. 9089 of 2026 on 3 August 2026, overturning a Sessions Court refusal. The petitioners had been in custody since their arrest on 1 June 2026, the same day the FIR was registered. The court found that the injured victim had suffered only simple injuries and that the major portion of the investigation was already complete, tilting the balance in favour of release on bail.

The Incident at CSK Comforts Lodge, Tumakuru

The FIR in Crime No. 63/2026 was registered by Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru, on the basis of a first information dated 1 June 2026 received from one Ameen Ahamad C.S., who is described in the proceedings as the injured victim.

According to the first information, Ameen Ahamad was running a lodge in the name of CSK Comforts. On the date of the incident, an IPL match had been played between Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Gujarat Titans (GT). After the match, the accused persons allegedly approached the lodge and demanded to know why the proprietor had kept the name “CSK” for his establishment.

The proprietor explained that the name CSK Comforts had no connection to the Chennai Super Kings cricket team. The accused allegedly did not accept this explanation, abused and assaulted the first informant, and also caused damage to his property. The FIR was registered against the two petitioners — Swamy, aged 38, and Suprith, aged 23, both residents of Bheemasandra, Tumakuru City — along with two other accused persons.

Both petitioners were arrested on 1 June 2026, the same day the FIR was lodged, and were remanded to judicial custody immediately thereafter.

Charges and the Bail Proceedings Below

The case was registered under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 109(1), 54, 115(2), and 190. Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 was also invoked.

The petitioners filed a bail application before the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 845/2026. That court rejected the application on 12 June 2026. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which is the provision governing bail applications before the High Court, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Reasoning of the High Court

Justice Vishwajith Shetty noted two material concessions and factual positions that informed the decision to grant bail.

The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, fairly submitted that the first informant had suffered only simple injuries in the incident. This was a significant admission, given that the severity of the injuries is a relevant consideration in bail matters under the BNS offences charged.

The court also took note of the fact that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents. They had been in continuous judicial custody since 1 June 2026 — over two months at the time of the order. The major portion of the investigation had been completed by then.

Having weighed these factors — the nature of the injuries, the absence of a criminal record, the duration of custody, and the stage of investigation — the court concluded that the prayer for regular bail deserved to be answered in the affirmative. The petition was allowed.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court directed that both petitioners be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 63/2026 subject to the following conditions:

• Each petitioner must 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.
• Both petitioners must appear regularly on all hearing dates before the trial court, unless the trial court exempts their appearance for valid reasons.
• They must not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
• They must not involve themselves in similar offences in future.
• They must not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without the court's permission until the case against them is disposed of.

Order

Criminal Petition No. 9089 of 2026 was allowed by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty of the High Court of Karnataka on 3 August 2026. Petitioners Swamy and Suprith, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 63/2026 registered by Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru, were directed to be enlarged on regular bail subject to the conditions set out above.