JOIN USThe Karnataka High Court adjourned the hearing of the bail application of Mohammed Nalapad to Thursday.
Nalapad and six of his aides were arrested for attacking Vidwath at Farzi Cafe in UB City.
Justice John Michael Cunha was hearing the petition filed by Nalapad who had moved the court challenging the rejection of his bail appeal by the sessions court.
Senior counsel BV Acharya contended that Nalapad had only slapped Vidwath and his aides were the ones who caused the injuries to the victim. He said that only ice buckets and bottles were used during the sudden fight. Acharya added that bottles cannot be considered as dangerous weapons.
The accused is the son of a ‘humanitarian’ MLA, the petitioner’s counsel added.
Against this, the judge sought to know as to why should this case be treated differently from other cases of similar offences. The bench orally observed: “Does the personality change the ingredient of their offence?”
In response to this, the state public prosecutor said:”The Nirbhaya case of an innocent girl’s rape also made headlines despite many such rapes happening across the country. The Nirbhaya case went on to amend the laws of punishment concerning rape in the country.”
He said that this case is of similar nature wherein a sheer ruthless manner, an innocent person was attacked, in what he called a ‘freak attack’. He added that the youth involved in the case are from the higher sections of the society and the incident took place at an upscale cafe, believed to be a ‘safe’ place.
He further contended that there was a series of attacks carried out by Nalapad and his aides on Vidwath. Starting from the cafe, followed by one on the escalator in the UB City and one even at the Mallya hospital where Vidwath was admitted.
The prosecution also handed over the CCTV footage of the assault to the judge who orally observed that eyewitness are the ears and eyes of justice.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that when a charge sheet has been filed, followed by an application for bail, the only ground on which the prosecution can defend is when the accused is absconding or is influencing the witnesses, which is not the case here.
The court is likely to pass orders in the case on Thursday.