East Bengaluru riots: Karnataka HC rejects bail plea of SDPI leader again

The Karnataka High Court yet again rejected the bail application of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) leader Imran Ahmed in the KG Halli-DJ Halli riots case.

A division bench headed by Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that the interest of an individual cannot march over the collective interest of the society.

The riots on the night of August 11, 2020 were triggered by a controversial Facebook post. An unruly mob attacked the police station and burned down the house of the then sitting Congress MLA Akhanda Srinivas Murthy, whose nephew Naveen had made the controversial post.

The NIA filed the charge sheet on February 5, 2021, naming the petitioner as accused No 22. His first bail petition was denied by the NIA special court, and this decision was upheld by the high court. Imran made another appeal to the high court after his second bail application was rejected by the NIA court.

In the appeal, the petitioner highlighted longevity of confinement and he also claimed to have found certain new material.

On the other hand, the special public prosecutor argued that an attack on the police station and the police personnel on duty are nothing short of an attack on the sovereignty of the country. It was further contended that there is no new material worth mentioning.

The court observed that though the Facebook post was condemnable, the swiftness of gathering, the hugeness of its size, the enormity of the terror generated, the shortness of the duration of perpetration, and the hugeness of loss to property make out a prima facie case for repelling the contention that all that had happened was at the spur of moment and as a reaction to a condemnable Facebook post.

The court also said the NIA placed abundant materials on record such as the videographs and photographs of the incident that prima facie demonstrates that the accused was an active participant in the incident.

It also said ‘bail as a rule and jail as an exception’ cannot be made applicable in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

“We are of the considered view that the cause of justice would be served more by continuing him in confinement than setting him free. This being said, we hasten to add that the subject case needs to be expeditiously tried since there are several accused persons, who have suffered rejection of their bail petitions and as a consequence, are continuing in judicial custody. They have a fundamental right to speedy justice, cannot be lost sight of. In our view, this is a fit case for speedy trial, if possible, on a day-to-day basis. We are also aware of the burden that the learned trial judge of the special court shoulders,” the bench said.