The Karnataka High Court has refused bail to the accused Imran Ahmed charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), for his alleged role in the Bengaluru Riots 2020 in the interest of public safety and society over individual liberty. The court noted that the prima facie complicity of the accused had been recorded after examining the material on record.
On August 11, 2020, riots broke out in Bangalore’s KG Halli area wherein “miscreants” attacked the local police station and set it on fire. The miscreants also caused extensive damage to public and private property, ransacking government and private vehicles. The police were attacked with stones, iron rods, wooden sticks, improvised petrol bombs and other weapons. The police then resorted to lathi charge and firing to dispel the “organized offenders.”
In view of the “enormity of violence, the gruesome way things were accomplished by the organized offenders and extensive damage caused to the private & public property,” the Government of India issued an order directing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the case.
The accused Imran Ahmed highlighted the longevity of confinement, the sanctity of basic human rights and the doctrine of innocence until proven guilty in his bail application. Furthermore, the accused called the NIA’s investigation a “farce” and quoted Justice Krishna Iyer as ‘bail is the rule and jail is an exception.’
However, the NIA submitted that the chargesheet was filed against the accused on February 5, 2021, and a wealth of material has been produced on record indicating the accused’s involvement in the incident. Furthermore, the NIA contended that the accused is an integral part of a gang and if released on bail, then the public will lose faith in the criminal justice system, the witnesses would not come forward to depose and members of civil society will not be able to walk freely.
The accused contended that the incident happened in the “spur of moment and as a reaction to a condemnable facebook post.” However, the court rejected the accused’s argument and said that “such attack was not by a few hooligans but it was by a huge gang who had gathered at the spot very swiftly and accomplished the acts of ‘dastardly terrorism’ what was commonly intended; the swiftness of gathering, the hugeness of its size (500-600), 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 of the accused.”
The court further said, “It is not a case of grave and sudden provocation; everything was meticulously preplanned and accordingly, was executed, to say the least. The fact that despite police warning through loudspeakers, the perpetrators did not dispel till after the police were perforced to resort to firing left with no other alternative, which eventually resulted into loss of a life.” The court added that “the way offences have been perpetrated cannot be expressed without prefixing the superlatives to these ‘gruesome and heinous’ organized acts.”
‘Bail is a Rule’ Norm
The court noted that Justice Krishna Iyer evolved a lenient norm of bail jurisprudence, ‘Bail is a rule & jail is an exception’ decades ago and in a case concerning the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court said that “terrorism & terrorists” at that time was a subject matter with which novels were produced.
The court said, “Much water has flowed under the bridges and we are living in different times; every daily newspaper will have some report or photograph about the terrorist acts. Legislative changes have been brought about to several penal statutes.” The court further said, “Liberty of an individual as constitutionally guaranteed is important; however, what is even more important is, the safety of civil society. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the interest of an individual cannot march over the collective interest of the society.”
Thus the court rejected the accused’s contentions that ‘bail is a rule’ and listed the reasons why it is inapplicable in this case. The court said the dicta “has to remain miles away” when the class of offences arising under a statute of great significance, such as UAPA.
The court said that the Parliament, in its accumulated wisdom, enacted the clauses severely restricting bail under the act. The court further said that the statute enacts a ‘negative burden clause’, which places the onus of proof on the accused. However, to invoke the negative burden, the prosecution has to initially discharge its onus.
The court concluded, “We are of the considered view that cause of justice would be served more by continuing him in confinement than setting him free.” However, the court further said that the case needs to be expeditiously tried since the accused persons are in continued judicial custody. The court said, “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 day to day basis. We are also aware of the burden that the learned trial Judge of Special Court shoulders.”
