Karnataka HC junks plea by accused in DJ Halli and KG Halli violence case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by 15 accused persons in the violence that occurred in DJ Halli and KG Halli police station limits on the night of August 11, 2020. A division bench comprising Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and KS Hemalekha said the petitioners have not made out any rarest of rare cases for the court to interfere.

A controversial Facebook post had triggered violence and an unruly mob had attacked the police station and also set the house of the then sitting MLA Akhanda Shrinivasamurthy on fire. The trigger was Akhanda Shrinivasamurthy’s nephew who had posted the comment on Facebook.

The petitioners, Syed Abbas and 14 others, had challenged the August 5, 2024 order passed by the Special Court for NIA cases, rejecting their application seeking to discharge them under the alleged offences punishable under sections 6, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioners contended that the prosecution lacked evidence and the charges levelled against them under UAPA were not made out. On the other hand, P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for the NIA, submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable against an order of the Special Court rejecting the application seeking discharge from the case.

The bench noted that an order rejecting discharge is basically an intermediate order affecting the right of the accused and such intermediate orders have to be challenged through an appeal before the high court under Section 21(1) of NIA Act and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The court cited the apex court judgements wherein it was held that while deciding the discharge application, trial courts are not supposed to merely act as a "post office" and have to consider the broad possibilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced. The Supreme Court had also said that the jurisdiction to be exercised needs to be consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered.

The division bench said that an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter.

“The special court by considering the charge sheet material opined that they attract the provision of Section 15 of the UAPA which were done with an intention to strike terror at the public at large. While considering an application seeking discharge, the court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a case of charge is made out or not and the settled proposition of law is that the court should not make a roving enquiry. The petitioners have not made out any rarest of rare cases for this court to interfere,” the court said.