Post Date: 28 May, 2025
Karnataka High Court Rejects Petition by Accused in DG Halli-KG Halli Riots Case: Bengaluru, May 28, 2025 — In a major legal development, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed petitions filed by 14 individuals accused in the 2020 KG Halli-DJ Halli riots case. These individuals had challenged the decision of a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court, which had earlier refused to discharge them from charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Karnataka High Court
The High Court’s ruling upholds the NIA court’s stance, reinforcing the seriousness of the allegations. This verdict marks an important step in the legal proceedings surrounding the Bengaluru riots, emphasizing the judiciary’s firm approach to cases involving alleged offences under anti-terror laws like UAPA. The accused will now continue to face trial as per the earlier NIA court order.
Background of the Case
The incident traces back to August 11, 2020, when a derogatory Facebook post allegedly made by the nephew of then-MLA Akhanda Srinivasamurthy sparked widespread unrest in the KG Halli and DJ Halli areas of Bengaluru. Protesters demanded immediate action against the individual responsible for the post. The situation escalated, leading to violent clashes, arson, and attacks on police stations and the MLA’s residence. The unrest resulted in multiple fatalities and injuries, prompting the imposition of curfews and a comprehensive investigation
Legal Proceedings and Charges
Initially, local police registered cases under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to property damage and rioting. Subsequently, the NIA took over the investigation, invoking provisions of the UAPA, citing elements of terrorism and conspiracy in the actions of the accused.
The 14 accused individuals approached the special NIA court seeking discharge from the charges, arguing a lack of sufficient evidence and misapplication of the UAPA. On August 5, 2024, the special court rejected their plea, stating that the materials on record warranted a full trial under the UAPA provisions.
High Court’s Rationale
Challenging the special court’s decision, the accused filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the High Court’s intervention. A division bench comprising Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and K S Hemalekha heard the matter and delivered the verdict on April 29, 2025, which was made public this week.
The High Court emphasized that the rejection of a discharge application is an intermediate order affecting the rights of the accused and should be challenged through appropriate appellate mechanisms, not via writ petitions. The bench noted that the petitioners failed to present any “rarest of rare” circumstances that would justify the court’s interference under its writ jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the court referred to Supreme Court guidelines, highlighting that trial courts must assess the sufficiency of evidence and the authenticity of documents when deciding on discharge applications. The High Court concurred with the special court’s assessment that the actions of the accused fell within the ambit of Section 15 of the UAPA, as they were intended to cause terror among the public.
Implications of the Verdict
The High Court’s decision reinforces the procedural sanctity of criminal trials, underscoring that intermediate orders like the rejection of discharge applications should be contested through designated appellate channels. The ruling also affirms the applicability of UAPA provisions in cases where actions are aimed at disrupting public order and instilling fear, even if the initial triggers were localized incidents.
This verdict sets a precedent for similar cases, delineating the boundaries of judicial intervention at various stages of criminal proceedings and reiterating the importance of following due process.
Karnataka High Court KG Halli Case Status
The Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of the petitions filed by the 14 accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case marks a pivotal moment in the legal proceedings surrounding the incident. By upholding the special NIA court’s decision, the High Court has emphasized the necessity of adhering to established legal protocols and the importance of addressing grievances through appropriate appellate avenues. The case continues to be a significant reference point in discussions about the application of anti-terror laws in instances of civil unrest.
Also Read: COMEDK 2025 Answer Key Released