'Investigate Murder, Not The Tweet': Karnataka High Court Stays Probe Against Law Student Booked Over Bantwal Murder Post Targeting Congress
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (July 20) stayed further investigation against a sixth-semester law student who was booked in two separate FIRs over a social media post on the murder of a young woman at the Bantwal bus stand, in which he had alleged that the Congress government would “quietly withdraw” the case against the accused.Granting interim relief, the single-judge bench of...
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (July 20) stayed further investigation against a sixth-semester law student who was booked in two separate FIRs over a social media post on the murder of a young woman at the Bantwal bus stand, in which he had alleged that the Congress government would “quietly withdraw” the case against the accused.
Granting interim relief, the single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna orally observed that the focus of the authorities should be on investigating the murder rather than the student's post.
“This is not where we want to glorify or celebrate this incident. What we should do is not get sensitive about these things. Investigate into the man who hacked her to death. You are blowing this tweet out of proportion, you are giving it the colour of Section 192 of the BNS/153A of the IPC, 353(2)/505(2) of the IPC…,” the Court observed.
The provisions deal with promoting enmity between groups and statements conducing to public mischief, and indicating that these sections were inapplicable to the facts of the case.
The Court noted that the impugned post contained no express reference to any religion, community or identifiable group and held that criminality could not be inferred “by imagination” when the words used did not convey such meaning.
“… Ordinarily, this Court would be slow in interdicting investigation, as it is at its nascent stage. Had the impugned tweet borne even a semblance to religious hostility, communal animosity or hatred, directed against any class or community, this Court would have permitted the investigating machinery to proceed in accordance with law…. It is the case of the complainant even that there is no reference to any religious group or identifiable group of persons. Therefore, essential ingredients that is necessary to attract the provisions of the Act are absent in the impugned tweet…. this Court deems it fit to interdict further investigation qua the petitioner in both these proceedings, until a fuller consideration happens...”, the court noted.
The petitioner who is a sixth-semester law student, posted on X (formerly Twitter) last week after the tragic killing of a woman at Bantwal.
Based on the post, an FIR was registered at Bantwal Town Police Station for offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS. Similarly, a crime was registered at High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru for offence under Section 192 of the BNS.
The second complaint was lodged by a political party worker who alleged that the tweet had damaged the image of the ruling party.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate L.S. Tejasvi Surya argued that even the complainant in the first FIR had admitted that no reference was made to any particular religious community. He further contended that there is a discernible pattern where individuals commenting on public platforms are being targeted in this fashion, giving political color.
With regard to the second FIR, the counsel contended that the statement was based on a matter of public record, pointing out that a Division Bench of the High Court had itself found fault with the withdrawal of criminal cases by the Government.
State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha vehemently opposed the grant of any protective order, contending that the crimes had been registered barely two days ago on July 18, and the petitions were filed even before 'the ink on the crimes could dry'.
The SPP submitted that when a murder occurs in a region, there are serious ramifications in society and a charged atmosphere prevails. He argued that such tweets only aggravate the situation and do not solve it, and hence everybody should exercise restraint.
Drawing parallels to the Supreme Court's observations in the Poonawalla case regarding hate speech and monitoring social media platforms, the SPP contended that the registration of FIR was a direct result of such judicial pronouncements.
The Court prima facie found that the tweet, on its plain reading, does not reveal any exhortation against a religious or identifiable group.
“…A careful reading of the tweet would reveal that it describes the assailant as a 'monster with a wrist watch on his left hand, pants above his ankles, killed a girl at Bantwala bus stand…. Beyond these words the tweet carries no express reference to any religion, community, caste or an identifiable group. It is only after an exercise of interpretation and inference, attempt is made to give it a communal colour…This Court is unable to discern, albeit, prima facie, from the language employed supra, any overt or tacit reference that unmistakably targets a particular community…”, it said.
Regarding the second part of the tweet about the Congress party withdrawing the case, the Court noted that the observation appeared to be founded upon a factual premise, as a Division Bench of the High Court had itself found fault with the withdrawal of criminal cases by the Government.
“…The second limb of the tweet states that the offender “probably knows that even if they arrest him, Congress will quietly withdraw the case”. The learned counsel…would submit that the observation is founded upon a matter of public record, pointing out that a Division Bench of this Court has itself found fault with the withdrawal of criminal cases by the Government. Prima facie, therefore, the statement appears to be founded upon a factual premise. These, therefore, remain too stubborn facts, staring at the record…”, the court opined.
Hence, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 4 SCC 156, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) 7 SCC 431, and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) 15 SCC 35, the Court deemed it fit to interdict further investigation qua the petitioner in both proceedings, until a fuller consideration.
The matter will be heard again on August 7, 2026.
Case Details: Kiran @ Kiran Aradhya (Law Student) v. State of Karntaka
Case No: Crl.P.No.10649/2026 & Crl.P.No.10650/2026
Counsel for Petitioner: L.S. Tejasvi Surya (Crl.P.No.10650/2026) & Girish Bharadwaj (Crl.P.No.10649/2026)