<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused, arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the cases related to 2020 Bengaluru riots, after noting that they have been in jail for more than five years.</p><p>A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma also noted that there are 254 witnesses to be examined and the appellants were two amongst the 138 accused persons. </p>.'Offence under category of upholding family prestige': SC orders release of murder convict on remission.<p>"Taking note of these facts, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order(s) and grant bail to the appellants," the bench said, granting relief to Kareem alias Sadam and another person.</p><p>The court also noted that charges have already been framed in the case, investigated by the National Investigation Agency.</p><p>It allowed the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's order of July 1, 2025.</p><p>The appellants were arrayed as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused, arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the cases related to 2020 Bengaluru riots, after noting that they have been in jail for more than five years.</p><p>A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma also noted that there are 254 witnesses to be examined and the appellants were two amongst the 138 accused persons. </p>.'Offence under category of upholding family prestige': SC orders release of murder convict on remission.<p>"Taking note of these facts, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order(s) and grant bail to the appellants," the bench said, granting relief to Kareem alias Sadam and another person.</p><p>The court also noted that charges have already been framed in the case, investigated by the National Investigation Agency.</p><p>It allowed the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's order of July 1, 2025.</p><p>The appellants were arrayed as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.</p>
