In a significant development, a Bengaluru court has granted bail to renowned actor and former Lok Sabha candidate Prakash Raj. The case in question involves allegations that Raj was registered as a voter in multiple Assembly constituencies across several states, information he allegedly withheld in his affidavit during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Bail Conditions and Court Proceedings
On July 10, Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Shantappa Kale sanctioned bail to Prakash Raj. The bail was granted on the stipulation that he provide a cash security of ₹4,000 and commit to appearing before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.
Previously, non-bailable warrants had been issued against the actor due to unsuccessful attempts to serve him summons. On the recent court date, Raj made a personal appearance, supported by his legal counsel who contended that Raj had not been served with any warrant. He learned of the court proceedings through media channels and voluntarily appeared in court.
“Prakash Raj has not received any warrant to date. He voluntarily came to court after learning from media reports,” his counsel, Nagarjuna, explained. It was also noted that Raj had surrendered his voter ID from Tamil Nadu.
Legal Context and Allegations
The legal action stems from a private complaint filed by K Dileep Kumar, a Bengaluru resident. The court, on August 1, 2025, recognized the alleged offenses under Sections 31 and 125A of the Representation of the People Act, seeing enough evidence to pursue the case against Raj.
More Read
During the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Prakash Raj ran as an independent candidate for the Bengaluru Central constituency. The complaint highlighted discrepancies in his election affidavit, which declared his voter registration in Bengaluru’s Shantinagar Assembly constituency, while allegedly omitting registrations in three other locations: Velachery in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, and Serilingampally in Telangana.
Sections 17 and 18 of the Representation of the People Act restrict a person from being registered in more than one constituency or multiple times within the same constituency. Additionally, Section 31 penalizes any false declarations related to electoral rolls, and Section 125A addresses penalties for filing a false affidavit.
Evidence and Trial Proceedings
The complainant supported his claims by testifying as a witness and presenting seven documents, including Raj’s nomination affidavit and voter registration details from Velachery and Serilingampally. The magistrate, upon examining the evidence, determined there was sufficient prima facie material to suggest Raj’s name appeared on multiple electoral rolls in 2019, contrary to his affidavit’s disclosures.
More Read
Consequently, the court found a prima facie case under Sections 31 and 125A of the Representation of the People Act, prompting the case to proceed to trial. The outcome of these proceedings could have significant implications for electoral integrity and legal compliance in the realm of political candidacy.
