The High Court of Karnataka has granted regular bail to a 38-year-old man who had been in judicial custody for approximately six months following allegations of defiling the public portraits of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Babu Jagjivan Ram. Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde, presiding over the Dharwad Bench , allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused, setting aside an earlier order by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Gadag , which had previously denied his request for relief.

The accused, identified as Ashok, a resident of Gulaguli village in the Gadag district, was arrested by the Gajendragad police on March 3, 2026 . He faced charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 , specifically for offences related to promoting communal disharmony, as well as provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 . The allegations centered on an incident occurring between March 1 and March 2, 2026 , during which the accused reportedly tied footwear to the photographs of national leaders in his village with the alleged intent to provoke communal disturbance.

Procedural Context of the Bail Appeal

Following his arrest in early March, the investigation into the incident proceeded at the district level. By the time the accused sought bail in the High Court, the investigation had concluded, and a charge sheet had been formally filed, with the proceedings currently registered as a Special Case before the trial court in Gadag. In his appeal against the Sessions Court ’s refusal to grant bail, the appellant’s counsel argued that the accused, an agriculturist by occupation, had no prior criminal antecedents . It was further submitted that since the charge sheet had been filed and his custodial presence was no longer required for investigative purposes, there was no legal justification for his continued incarceration.

The State, represented by the High Commissioner Government Pleader (HCGP), opposed the release. The prosecution maintained that the nature of the offence—the desecration of iconic national figures—posed a significant risk of communal tension within the region. The state argued that if released, the accused might repeat similar actions or interfere with the ongoing judicial process. Despite these contentions, the High Court emphasized that the core requirement for bail rests on the necessity of detention rather than the gravity of the allegations at the pretrial stage .

Court Reasoning on Extended Custodial Duration

In her judgment, Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde noted that the passage of six months since the initial arrest without a change in the evidentiary status of the case weighed in favor of granting bail. The court observed that the filing of the charge sheet essentially marked the end of the investigative phase, thereby mitigating the need for further custodial interrogation .

Reflecting on the balance between individual liberty and public order , the court’s order stated, “On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that charge sheet has already been filed and he has been in Judicial Custody for a period of six months , his custodial interrogation may not be required and as there are no criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail.”

The High Court determined that the accused met the threshold for release, emphasizing the importance of not prolonging detention when the state has already secured its evidence and identified the accused. This decision reaffirms the principle that incarceration should not be treated as a form of preemptive punishment, particularly when the accused has no history of criminal behavior and is a supporting member of his household.

Operational Bail Conditions Imposed by High Court

To ensure the integrity of the ongoing trial and to safeguard the interests of the prosecution, the High Court imposed a series of strictly monitored conditions upon the appellant. He has been ordered to execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000, accompanied by a surety for the same amount, to be verified to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Furthermore, the court issued a clear mandate regarding his conduct during the pendency of the trial . The accused is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without obtaining prior authorization. He is also strictly barred from tampering with evidence or threatening any prosecution witnesses. The court has directed him to appear before the Investigating Officer or the trial court whenever required and to ensure his presence at every scheduled hearing. The order explicitly states that any violation of these terms will empower the prosecution to immediately move for the cancellation of his bail . The case now proceeds to the trial phase at the Special Court in Gadag , where the accused will face the charges levelled against him under the BNS and the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act.