Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Activist Accused Of Outraging Modesty Of Woman By Linking Her To Veerendra Heggade

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to social activitist Mahesh Shetty Thimarody accused of making allegedly derogatory remarks about a woman and implying that she had an illicit relationship with Rajya Sabha MP Veerendra Heggade, administrator (Dharma Adhikari) of Dharmasthala Temple.

The single judge bench of Justice R. Nataraj opined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the crux of the case at hand relies on a purported telephonic conversation between the accused and one Mr. Prajwal.

The said call recording was allegedly later forwarded to the complainant woman's son by Prajwal himself. The son, disturbed by the insinuations allegedly made by Shetty on the call recording, informed his mother about the same.

The complainant had alleged that the petitioner had thereby linked her to Veerendra Hegde and his brothers. She claimed that this outraged her modesty and generated enmity between groups. 

"The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail in respect of offences which are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment. The only consideration that should have weighed in the mind of the Trial Court was whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and whether granting anticipatory bail would embolden the petitioner to flee from the hands of justice. The case revolves around a telephone conversation and hence, there is no need for a custodial interrogation although the petitioner is required to give his voice sample for forensic analysis. This can be taken care by imposing suitable conditions. The Trial Court must have considered the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail from this perspective" the court said. 

For context, the  trial court had dismissed his anticipatory bail plea of Shetty on May 6.

Shetty has been booked in an FIR under BNS Sections 196(1) (promoting enmity between groups), 352 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 79 (insult with intent to provoke breach of peace). 

The case stems from a complaint lodged in April by a woman alleging that that her son appeared disturbed upon receiving a message, and upon inquiry, he disclosed that one Mr. Prajwal had forwarded a conversation between Prajwal and the petitioner Shetty.

In the purported call recording, Shetty allegedly told Prajwal that he had seen a video and inquired whether the video was related to Prajwal's father. The petitioner further purportedly asked Prajwal whether the complainant had slept with Veerendra Heggade, linking her to Heggade and his family. He also allegedly made a remark that the complainant's son and others were not born to the Shetty family but were born to Jains.

Before the High Court, Adv. Akshatha Shetty,appearing for petitioner argued the petitioner was merely referring to a play staged by Prajwal and he did not make any indecent comments about the complainant woman. Shetty further claimed that a false case has been registered against him for his attempts to expose the wrongdoings of the Hegde family and the controversial Dharmasthala burial cases.

The state characterised the charges against Shetty as severe ones and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.

“…The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail in respect of offences which are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment. The only consideration that should have weighed in the mind of the Trial Court was whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and whether granting anticipatory bail would embolden the petitioner to flee from the hands of justice…”, the single judge bench observed in its order, disagreeing with the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail.

The High Court, while allowing the petition and granting anticipatory bail, asked Shetty to execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/-with a solvent surety for the likesum, among other conditions. 

The Court also made it clear that any violation of these conditions would entitle the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Case Title: Mahesh Shetty Thimarody v. State of Karnataka

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7376 of 2026

Click Here To Read/ Download Order