<p>The Supreme Court on Monday rejected bail plea by a retired engineer and others, including members of Social Democratic Party of India and Popular Front of India, facing charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for their alleged involvement in 2020 Bengaluru riots.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said at this juncture, when the trial was still pending, the court was not inclined to consider any relief to 68-year-old retired engineer Mohammed Kaleem Ahmed and others.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Ahmed, said that the petitioner had already remained in custody for 14 months and he was not named in original FIR but was made an accused after the National Investigation Agency took the charge. The case was triggered due to political cat fight after a social media post, he pointed out.</p>.<p>The bench, however, said it has gone through the case details. It added that the High Court has passed the detailed order, there were charges under the UAPA, besides other penal provisions.</p>.<p>Luthra contended that the petitioner was made an accused under the UAPA for burning a vehicle. He was found to be at the place of incident and named by a policeman because his pharmaceutical shop was around. The counsel also submitted that there were 154 witnesses in the case.</p>.<p>"We can’t have a society like this. This is apart from all other... there is the UAPA, and damages to public properties," the bench said.</p>.<p>Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, appearing for other accused, submitted that they were in jail for the past 16 months. For allegedly burning of bike, the charges under UAPA was invoked against them.</p>.<p>The top court, however, said, in view of overall situation, it was not inclined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court, rejecting their bail plea.</p>.<p>The violence in Bengaluru on August 12, 2020, had claimed lives of four people. </p>.<p>The case related to offences under the UAPA, the IPC, as well as the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p>.<p>Around 3,000 to 4,000 people went on a rampage and set ablaze the houses of Congress MLA Srinivasamurthy and his sister over an alleged inflammatory social media post by his nephew.</p>.<p>The mob also torched Devara Jeevanahalli and Kadugondanahalli police stations over suspicion that the nephew was present there.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday rejected bail plea by a retired engineer and others, including members of Social Democratic Party of India and Popular Front of India, facing charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for their alleged involvement in 2020 Bengaluru riots.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said at this juncture, when the trial was still pending, the court was not inclined to consider any relief to 68-year-old retired engineer Mohammed Kaleem Ahmed and others.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Ahmed, said that the petitioner had already remained in custody for 14 months and he was not named in original FIR but was made an accused after the National Investigation Agency took the charge. The case was triggered due to political cat fight after a social media post, he pointed out.</p>.<p>The bench, however, said it has gone through the case details. It added that the High Court has passed the detailed order, there were charges under the UAPA, besides other penal provisions.</p>.<p>Luthra contended that the petitioner was made an accused under the UAPA for burning a vehicle. He was found to be at the place of incident and named by a policeman because his pharmaceutical shop was around. The counsel also submitted that there were 154 witnesses in the case.</p>.<p>"We can’t have a society like this. This is apart from all other... there is the UAPA, and damages to public properties," the bench said.</p>.<p>Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, appearing for other accused, submitted that they were in jail for the past 16 months. For allegedly burning of bike, the charges under UAPA was invoked against them.</p>.<p>The top court, however, said, in view of overall situation, it was not inclined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court, rejecting their bail plea.</p>.<p>The violence in Bengaluru on August 12, 2020, had claimed lives of four people. </p>.<p>The case related to offences under the UAPA, the IPC, as well as the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p>.<p>Around 3,000 to 4,000 people went on a rampage and set ablaze the houses of Congress MLA Srinivasamurthy and his sister over an alleged inflammatory social media post by his nephew.</p>.<p>The mob also torched Devara Jeevanahalli and Kadugondanahalli police stations over suspicion that the nephew was present there.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
