The Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge Congress Leader Sirajuddin @ Siraj Sheikh from a criminal case alleging caste-related abuses and intentional insult, holding that the material collected during investigation was sufficient to require him to face trial.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order on August 14, 2026, in Criminal Petition No. 8882 of 2024. The petition challenged the rejection of his discharge application by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident reported on August 15, 2023, concerning events of August 12, 2023. The police initially registered a case under several provisions of the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation, the charge sheet proceeded against the petitioner under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
The petitioner argued that the complainant was not the principal victim and that, during one alleged incident near a college, the victim was not present. He contended that the requirement of Section 3(1)(r), which concerns intentional insult or intimidation of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member within public view, was therefore not satisfied.
Court's Observations
The High Court noted that the allegations did not relate to a single isolated exchange. The prosecution case referred to alleged abuses at three different locations, beginning with a political gathering, with members of the public allegedly present.
The Court also took note of the prosecution material, including statements of witnesses and electronic evidence. About 21 witnesses were cited, while the video footage had also been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court observed that the evidentiary value of this material could not be finally assessed at the discharge stage.
On the question of “public view”, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that a political rally is inherently a public gathering. The Court held that the allegations, if accepted at the preliminary stage, were sufficient to prima facie satisfy this requirement.
The Court further held that questions concerning the truth of witness statements, authenticity and effect of the recordings, and the intention behind the alleged words were matters for trial.
“The answer lies in a trial and not in premature termination of the prosecution,” the Court observed.
Decision
The High Court held that the order refusing discharge suffered from no legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court rejected Criminal Petition.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sirajuddin @ Siraj Sheikh v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8882 of 2024
- Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
- Decision Date: August 14, 2026
 Act-300x169.webp)
