In a strong rebuke to the Congress-led Karnataka government, the Kalaburagi Bench of the High Court has issued an interim stay on the State Cabinet’s move to withdraw the criminal case linked to the violent stone-pelting attack on police personnel during the 2019 Bakrid cow-transport incident in Chittapur. As per reports from the Organiser, the stay order came after petitioner Girish Bhardwaj challenged the government’s decision, calling it an unconstitutional attempt to protect individuals involved in an assault on on-duty police officers.
The Division Bench, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the potential abuse of executive power, stayed the official notification and fixed December 4 for the next hearing. The court’s intervention is being widely interpreted as a stinging reminder to the government that the rule of law cannot be selectively applied to suit political objectives.
The 2019 Bakrid cow-transport clash
The dispute dates back to August 2019, when the Chittapur police, acting on reliable information, intercepted a vehicle suspected of transporting cows illegally near the Diggaon Cross-checkpost. As officers detained the vehicle, a group of 15–20 individuals, including Sheikh Mohsin, Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Yusuf, Imran, Noor Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Zakir, Muhammad Wajid, Mujahid, Muhammad Khalil, Iqbal, Riyaz, Farooq, and Baba Saudagar, stormed the spot and confronted the police team.
Despite repeated instructions from the officers to cooperate and allow lawful inspection of the vehicle, the group allegedly escalated the situation with arguments, threats, and aggressive behavior. They soon moved towards Basirganj Chowk near the police station and, moments later, launched a sudden stone-pelting attack aimed at obstructing police action.
A stone thrown by the accused Sheikh Mohsin struck and damaged the car of one Abhijit, creating panic in the locality and endangering both civilians and police personnel. The assault disrupted public movement and posed a serious threat to law-enforcement officers performing their duties.
A case was subsequently registered against the accused under various sections pertaining to assault on government officers, obstruction of public duty, and destruction of property.
Congress govt’s withdrawal order sparks anger
In September 2025, the Karnataka Cabinet abruptly decided to withdraw the case, triggering widespread outrage among legal experts, police circles, and civil society groups. Many accused the Congress government of indulging in appeasement politics by trying to protect Islamist individuals involved in a violent attack on police officers.
The petitioner argued that withdrawing such a serious case not only undermined the criminal justice system but also sent a dangerous message that violent offenders could escape punishment through political patronage. He further contended that the Cabinet’s move violated Article 14 of the Constitution and ignored mandatory legal procedures governing the withdrawal of criminal cases.
Agreeing that the matter warranted immediate judicial examination, the High Court halted the government order.
The police community welcomes the Court’s intervention
Across Kalaburagi, numerous serving and retired police personnel, though unwilling to be named publicly, expressed relief and appreciation for the High Court’s stance. Many said the Cabinet’s decision had deeply demoralized officers, particularly at a time when attacks on police personnel have been increasing across Karnataka.
Members of the policing community emphasized that the state government should prioritize safeguarding the dignity and security of police officers, rather than appeasing specific groups for electoral gains. They warned that the withdrawal order essentially normalized Islamist mob aggression and weakened the institutional authority of the police force.
Opposition parties intensified their criticism of the Congress government, accusing it of misusing executive power to interfere in criminal cases for vote-bank considerations. Opposition leaders pointed out that the state’s growing history of withdrawing Islamist-mediated riot and mob-violence cases has raised serious concerns about selective law enforcement and the gradual erosion of accountability mechanisms.
The High Court’s stay, therefore, is being seen not only as a setback for the government but also as a crucial intervention to protect the integrity of the justice system and uphold the principle that no one should be above the law.
The Congress government is facing massive backlash for its continued pattern of Islamic minority appeasement, most recently seen in its decision to drop charges against AIMIM-linked leaders involved in pro-Hijab protests and the Hubballi riots. This is not an isolated incident; the same Congress administration had earlier withdrawn cases related to the K.J. Halli–D.J. Halli riots, where violent Islamist mobs attacked police stations and destroyed public property.
What exactly is the Congress government trying to achieve with this kind of dirty, cheap vote-bank politics? Why repeatedly protect radical elements and withdraw cases against Islamists involved in riots, attacks, and public violence? Such actions raise serious questions about the government’s priorities and its complete disregard for law, order, and justice.
Indded, the situation is quite grim:
1. The religiously oriented gangster Mohammadans not only snatch cows but also brazenly transport them through regions which has large amount of Hindu population.
2. When police intercepted the vehicle, local Mohammadans gather together and attack the police station and police personnel inside there. As also on other Hindus and their vehicles.
3. Some criminals who attacked law enforcement are public names now – Sheikh Mohsin, Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Yusuf, Imran, Noor Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Zakir, Muhammad Wajid, Mujahid, Muhammad Khalil, Iqbal, Riyaz, Farooq, and Baba Saudagar. But the government is actively protecting them. It is the Hindu populace that is afraid of these criminals. While these criminals – motivated Mohammadans – are getting support from government populated mostly by “Hindus”
4. Police personnels active and retired anonymously admit they are quite demoralized, none are willing to discuss such protection of criminals by state government.
5. Hindus and Hindu organizations within and outside the state are more or less largely passive and radical Mohammadans have no fear of them, actually it is the opposite, despite Hindu majority in and outside the Karnataka state.
Therefore conscientious, upright brave people like Girish Bharadwaj, their lawyers S.S. Dikshit and Venkatesh must be appreciated for being brave and resisting in such a Mohammadan terror filled environment, where the Hindu populace is anxious but passive like cattles on attacked by predators. Justice Sachin Shankar Magdum’s uprightness and bravery is exemplary. It simply shows that being courageous makes a big difference and keeps us safe.
If Karnataka Hindus and nation’s Hindus think that it is better to be jugadu and invisible for their safety and if Mohammadan terror becomes excessive, they will simply convert, then it is just a dangerous escapism. It will only lead us to a highly corrosive, terror filled, future, where the only difference would be that instead of being scared and passive, they too will become participant in Islamic terrorism, but not become a safe society, quite the opposite.