Bail denied to 41 accused in consideration to 2022 Hubballi riots case and recommendation for establishing up 3 new NIA courts for the speedy trial came up by Karnataka High Court
In the case titled Shoheb Ali @ Sajid Ali vs State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court has refused to grant bail to 41 accused in the 2022 Hubballi riots lawsuit. The context of the Hubballi riots case was that around a thousand people pelted stones at a police station.
A bench of Justices B Veerappa and Venkatesh Naik disregarded the criminal appeal filed by the 41 indicted in relation with the aggression exhibited on Old Hubballi police station in April 2022.
The lawsuit was reported against 140 individuals under varied provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after the stone pelting incident took place. As per the reports, the crowd was furious that a photo of a saffron flag on the dome of a mosque was being disseminated.
The 41 accused after their bail applications were denied by a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court appealed before the High Court.
Advocate S Balakrishnan for the accused asserted that they could not be declared members of a terrorist organisation as defined under section 2(m) of UAPA as none of them were constituents of any of the 43 outlawed organisations under section 35 of UAPA.
Advocate A Balakrishnan also substantiated that Section 16(1)(a) was relevant only if the act outcomes a casualty, which had not occurred. He also called attention to the fact that to draw in Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy) of UAPA, there was no prima facie lawsuit brought in. Moreover, he argued that facts of the present lawsuit were distinct as corresponded to the verdicts counted upon by the trial Court.
Accordingly, Special Public Prosecutor VM Sheelvant contended that thousands of people had amassed in front of the police station to toss pebbles at the station, resulting in impairment to public property and injuries to a few policemen. Henceforth, noting that the accused had engaged in a grave crime, he requested for denial of their bail applications.
The Court specified that it was precise that the accused were concerned in heinous offences of initiating religious discord amongst the community ushering to disruption of public harmony and tranquility, and their involvement could be outlined from the CCTV footage and call detail records.
“On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail applications…it is clear that tranquillity persons were involved in heinous offences of creating religious disharmony amongst the society leading to disturbance of public peace and tranquillity and their involvement can be traced out from the CCTV footages, call detail records etc,” the Court declared.
Subsequently, it refused the bail applications of the accused and upheld the special court ruling.
Proposal for installation of new NIA courts
The Court also was notified by the accused that the NIA Court in Bengaluru was hearing lawsuits other than NIA cases, thereby causing a delay in the trial.
Taking this into concern, the Court suggested that the State government set up special courts in Belagavi, Kalaburagi and Mysuru for speedy trial of cases registered by NIA so that the right to a speedy trial is shielded.
Written by Sonakshi Misra, 2nd year (4th semester) B.A.LL.B. Hons. student at Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
0 Comments