Bengaluru Court Re-issues Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Prakash Raj in Voter ID Case

A city magistrate has re-issued a non-bailable warrant for the veteran actor following his repeated failure to appear in court regarding allegations of multiple voter registrations.

The legal trouble for Prakash Raj has intensified as a Bengaluru court once again issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the actor on June 12. This marks the third time such a coercive measure has been ordered in a case dating back to 2019, when the actor contested the Lok Sabha elections from the Bengaluru Central constituency. The proceedings, currently before the 48th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, stem from a private complaint filed by city-based advocate K. Dilip Kumar.

The core of the legal dispute involves allegations that the actor’s name appeared on four different electoral rolls across three states—specifically in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana. The complainant argues that such multiple registrations violate the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which prohibits an individual from holding more than one voter ID card. While the court took formal cognizance of offenses under sections 31 and 125(A) of the Act in August 2025, the actor has yet to present himself for the hearings.

A Trail of Missed Appearances

The path to this latest warrant has been marked by repeated administrative hurdles. Following the initial summons issued on February 17, 2026, via the Commissioner of Police, authorities reported that the actor could not be located at the provided address. By March 17, the court noted that the accused had vacated the premises and officially issued the first NBW. Subsequent hearings in April and June saw the warrant re-issued after the actor failed to appear. The latest June 12 order ensures the case remains active, with the next hearing scheduled for July 25, 2026.

Despite the persistent reports of an outstanding warrant, the actor has previously dismissed the claims on social media, labeling reports of an arrest warrant as "fake news." However, official court records confirm that the judicial process is moving forward, with the magistrate maintaining the warrant status due to the lack of personal appearance by the accused.

Why It Matters

This case highlights the tightening scrutiny on electoral integrity and the legal responsibilities of public figures. While the allegations focus on technical violations of the Representation of the People Act, the repeated issuance of an NBW underscores a significant procedural friction between the judiciary and high-profile citizens. For the legal system, ensuring that summons are served and followed is a matter of institutional credibility. As the case heads toward the July hearing, the outcome could set a precedent for how courts handle non-compliance in electoral registration matters, effectively bridging the gap between celebrity status and legal accountability.