Glaring errors in police probe: Karnataka HC gives bail to 4 men accused of attacking RSS worker

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to four men accused of attacking an RSS worker during a pro-CAA rally last December, citing “glaring discrepancies” in the police investigation.

On January 12, 2020, Kalasiplaya police arrested Mohammed Irfan, Akbar Pasha, Syed Siddique and Sanaulla Shariff for allegedly attacking Varun Bopala on December 22, 2019. The four men have been in jail ever since and were subsequently charged. An additional city civil and sessions court rejected their bail application on March 2, 2020.

Police claim that the men belong to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and had later joined its political avatar, the SDPI (Social Democratic Party of India). Police also claim that the accused had conspired to kill a functionary of the RSS or another Hindu organisation who would attend a demonstration in support of the Citizens (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) outside Town Hall on December 22, 2019. The demonstration was organised by L S Tejasvi Surya, the BJP member of parliament from Bangalore South.

Police further claimed that the accused followed Bopala as soon as he left the venue, cornered him and attacked him. Police based their theory on the footage of over 300 CCTV cameras. Police had initially booked the four men under the IPC but later invoked the harsh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against them.

Hearing the bail application, Justice John Michael Cunha observed that there was ambiguity in the objective and purpose of the alleged conspiracy as claimed by the police. He also pointed out that the police had ascertained the identity of the accused based on their appearance.

“In the said circumstance, in the absence of test identification parade, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has made (a) prima facie case to show the involvement of accused Nos 1 to 4 in the alleged assault. In view of these glaring discrepancies and various other circumstances noticed in the charge sheet which I do not propose to discuss in detail at this stage lest it would prejudice the trial, I do not find any justifiable reason to extend the custody of the petitioners,” he stated in the order.