Published on :
Karnatak: The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to 41 persons accused in the 2022 Hubballi riots case where a mob of around thousand people had pelted stones at a police station [Shoheb Ali @ Sajid Ali vs State of Karnataka].
A bench of Justices B Veerappa and Venkatesh Naik dismissed the criminal appeal from filed by the 41 accused in connection with the attack on Old Hubballi police station in April 2022.
The case was registered against 140 persons under various provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after the stone pelting incident. Reportedly, the mob was angry that a photo of a saffron flag on the dome of a mosque was being circulated.
The 41 accused approached the High Court after their bail applications were rejected by a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court.
Advocate S Balakrishnan for the accused contended that they could not be declared members of a terrorist organisation as defined under section 2(m) of UAPA as none of them were members of any of the 43 banned organisations under section 35 of UAPA.
Further, he contended that Section 16(1)(a) was applicable only if the act results in a death, which had not happened. He also underlined that to attract Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy) of UAPA, there was no prima facie case made out.
He also contended that facts of the present case were different as compared to the judgments relied upon by the trial Court.
On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor VM Sheelvant argued that thousands of people had gathered in front of the police station to throw stones, resulting in damage to public property and injuries to a few policemen. Hence, stating that the accused had committed serious crimes, he prayed for dismissal of their bail applications.
The Court determined that it was clear that the accused were involved in heinous offences of creating religious disharmony amongst the society leading to disturbance of public peace and tranquility, and their involvement could be traced 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 the accused 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 said.
Hence, it rejected the bail applications of the accused and upheld the special court order.
Recommendation for establishment of new NIA courts
The Court also was informed by the accused that the NIA Court in Bengaluru was hearing cases other than NIA cases, thereby causing delay in trial.
Taking this into consideration, the Court recommended 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 speedy trial is protected.
