Whether the words were aimed at Scheduled Caste persons as a group, or at named workers of one association, decided this bail plea: a Bengaluru Special Court has granted anticipatory bail to former Mysuru MP Prathap Simha in the ‘blue shawl’ remark case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Granting anticipatory bail to Prathap Simha, former Member of Parliament from Mysuru, in two FIRs registered over alleged remarks made during a Ganesha Visarjan procession, a Bengaluru Special Court on Thursday held that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not prima facie disclosed. The allegations are untested, the court has not tried the case, and the accused is presumed innocent.
The petition was allowed, subject to conditions, by Judge Shivaprasad K.B., 82nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.
Who the video showed the remarks were meant for
The Court watched the video of the speech produced by the Investigating Officer. It relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that not every insult or intimidation of a person is an offence under the Act, unless it is on account of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The videograph produced by the prosecution would indicate the allegations of petitioner against the persons claiming to be the members of Dalit Sangharsh Samithi and such videograph also fortify that the petitioner is not attributing against scheduled caste persons as a whole.
According to the Court, the statements were about particular individuals, namely workers and office-bearers of one association, and not about the Scheduled Caste community as a whole. The video, it added, showed no attempt to promote ill feeling or enmity against members of Scheduled Castes.
What the FIRs allege
T. Narasipura Police lodged the first FIR under the SC/ST Act over a speech during the procession. The complaint alleges that Simha insulted the Dalit community by saying that individuals and activists wearing blue shawls came only for their livelihood, asked them to ‘read Ambedkar first’, and called Dalit office-bearers ‘agitators’ for money. A second FIR alleges that he made caste-related remarks about a Police Inspector in public view.
Simha’s version
Simha says that, before the procession, a police officer had allegedly made derogatory remarks about devotees concerning the procession passing a mosque, which agitated the devotees, and that he then spoke against the inspector from the procession vehicle. He says his remarks were aimed at the conduct of the police and not at any religion or community. His counsel argued that the words were general political criticism against an unnamed group and that no identified person was humiliated.
The remaining charges and the conclusion
Turning to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (assault on a public servant), the Court noted that the prosecution had submitted a requisition to drop the provision. It also noted that the offence under Section 352 BNS is bailable. The Court concluded:
Thus, in view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the prima facie case for the alleged non-bailable offences are not satisfied, and hence, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Earlier, Simha had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the two FIRs.
What the order signals
The order applies the settled position that the SC/ST Act is attracted only when an insult or intimidation is directed at a person because of caste identity, and that prima facie satisfaction on that point is the gateway for anticipatory bail despite the statutory bar. The observations are made only for deciding the bail plea. They do not express a final view on the merits, and the complainants’ allegations remain to be tested at trial.
Case Title: Not stated in the available report (anticipatory bail petition, Prathap Simha)
Bench: Judge Shivaprasad K.B., 82nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Bengaluru
Date of Order: October 8, 2026 (date of report)
Appearances: Advocate Sudarshan Suresha, with Advocates Sainath DM, Neha Venkatesh, Pavana NM, Nandan Patil and Ananya Krishna, for the petitioner