Karnataka High Court
Imran Ahmed V. National investigation agency
Bench- THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
CRL.A.NO.124/2023
Decided On 29-05-2023
Facts of the case-
On the night of 11.08.2020, violent riots erupted in the K.G.Halli area of Bangalore City. The rioters attacked the local police station, setting it on fire and causing extensive damage to private and public property. Government and private vehicles were looted, and the general public was terrorised.
Despite being attacked with various weapons such as stones, iron rods, wooden sticks, and improvised petrol bombs, the police officials held their ground. Eventually, the police had to resort to a lathi charge and firing to disperse the organized offenders. This incident became widely known as the “K.G.Halli Riots.”
Numerous criminal cases were registered against a large number of miscreants involved in the riots. These cases were filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon), 353 (assault on public servant), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), and 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object). Additionally, the cases were also registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Three prominent cases, namely Crime Nos. 227, 228, and 229 of 2020, were registered. On 17.8.2020, additional charging provisions under sections 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were added to Crime No. 229 of 2020. A total of 181 individuals were accused, out of which 141, including a juvenile, were arrested. Twelve individuals were reported as absconding, and one person died during police firing.
Considering the severity of the violence, the brutal manner in which the offenses were committed, and the extensive damage caused to public and private property, the Central Government, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, issued an order on 21.9.2020, under the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008. This order directed the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation of Crime No. 229 of 2020. The NIA re-registered the case as R.C.No. 35/2020/NIA/DLI on 21.9.2020.
The NIA conducted the investigation and subsequently filed a charge sheet. The charge sheet implicated the appellant, identified as accused No. 22, as part of a terrorist gang involved in the incident. The charge sheet provided detailed information on the incident, and a summary of it was included in the NIA’s Statement of Objections filed to oppose the bail petitions.
The appellant had previously filed a bail petition in Spl.C.C.No.141/2021, which was rejected by the Special Judge of the Court below on 19.11.2022. This decision was upheld by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in an earlier appeal, Crl.A.No.585/2021, along with Crl.A.Nos.576/2021, 582/2021, and 745/2021, on 15.9.2021. Another bail petition was presented in Spl.C.C.No.152/2021, which was also denied. In this current appeal, the appellant is challenging the rejection of the bail petition.
Judgement
The Division bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur declined to apply the well-established principle of “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” in this particular case. The court emphasized that this principle cannot be applied in cases involving offenses under special statutes of significant importance, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The court provided three key reasons for its decision. Firstly, it acknowledged that Parliament, with its accumulated wisdom, has enacted provisions in the aforementioned Act that severely restrict the grant of bail. Secondly, the court noted that the Act includes a “negative burden” clause, which places the burden of proof on the accused, contrary to the usual rule where the burden lies on the prosecution. Lastly, the court highlighted that the dictum of “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” originated decades ago in cases governed by the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and may not be directly applicable in the current context.
The court rejected the accused’s arguments invoking basic human rights and the presumption of innocence, pointing out that the negative burden clause under the 1967 Act challenges the immediate application of the doctrine of innocence. The bench expressed reservations about readily invoking the doctrine of innocence in a case of this nature, considering the severe and undesirable consequences that could arise from releasing an undertrial involved in a heinous incident of such magnitude.
The court supported the Special Public Prosecutor’s contention that in serious cases where the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has conducted a thorough investigation and filed a charge sheet, bail should not be granted. The NIA presented substantial evidence, including video and photographic evidence of the incident, mobile phone call records, mobile tower records, weapons used, and statements of eyewitnesses, including injured police officials, establishing the active participation of the appellant-accused in the horrifying incident.
Furthermore, the court agreed with the prosecution’s submission that in bail matters, the court must consider not only the rights and liberties of the accused but also the threat to the safety of civil society if such offenders are released. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the bench acknowledged the importance of human rights but ultimately concluded that keeping the accused in custody would serve the cause of justice better.
Recognizing that several accused individuals have already been denied bail and are currently in judicial custody, the court emphasized the need for an expedited trial conducted on a day-to-day basis. The court stressed the fundamental right of these individuals to speedy justice and acknowledged the burden on the trial judge of the Special Court.
Finally, the court dismissed the Criminal Appeal, stating that it lacks merit. It clarified that the observations made in the decision pertain solely to the appeal’s disposal and should not impact the ongoing trial or the orders to be made by the lower court in that regard.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
