-
by Admin
20 December 2025 9:36 AM
"Five Years’ Custody No Reason to Override Gravity of Terror Charges", Karnataka High Court refused to grant bail to two alleged members of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) accused in the 2020 DJ Halli–KG Halli riots. A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice P. Sree Sudha held that prolonged incarceration of over five years could not be used as a ground for bail when the delay was caused by the accused themselves through repeated and obstructive litigation tactics. The court stressed the serious nature of the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the risk they posed to public order and national security.
The riots took place on the night of 11 August 2020 in Bengaluru’s DJ Halli and KG Halli areas, allegedly triggered by a derogatory Facebook post by P. Naveen, nephew of a local MLA, in response to a post from the account of accused No. 1. According to the NIA, the incident was no spontaneous mob reaction but a pre-planned act of terror orchestrated by SDPI leaders disgruntled with the Central Government over issues including the revocation of Article 370 and the CAA/NRC.
The prosecution alleged that the accused intentionally chose Sri Krishna Janmashtami, an important Hindu festival, to foment communal unrest. Mobs, allegedly mobilised by SDPI leaders including the appellants, attacked the KG Halli police station, pelted stones, torched vehicles, attempted to snatch police weapons, and obstructed law enforcement.
Both appellants have been in custody since their arrest in 2020, facing charges under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code for rioting, arson, and assault on public servants. The trial involves 138 accused and over 250 prosecution witnesses.
The primary legal contention before the High Court was whether prolonged custody—over five years—could justify bail despite the serious UAPA charges. The appellants relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb to argue that the trial’s slow progress warranted release. They also claimed parity with co-accused who received lighter sentences after pleading guilty.
The Bench, however, found that the accused had themselves been responsible for the delay:
“The accused themselves… in a calculated manner abusing the process of Court are exhausting time and resources… and have obstructed the trial. Now they are trying to make delay caused by them only as foundation to seek bail.”
The court rejected parity with co-accused, noting that those individuals had shown remorse and admitted guilt, whereas the appellants had contested the charges from the outset.
It also dismissed the suggestion that earlier Supreme Court refusals to grant bail were “in limine” and without merit consideration, calling the argument “misleading”.
The High Court underlined that offences under Section 16 of the UAPA attract the death penalty or life imprisonment, reflecting their gravity. It observed that the alleged acts—targeting a police station, setting vehicles ablaze, and attempting to seize weapons—were aimed at undermining the sovereignty and integrity of the State.
The Division Bench concluded:
“By no stretch of imagination… can it be concluded that the trial Court committed any perversity or illegality in rejecting the bail applications.”
Both appeals were dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling reinforces that in cases involving grave offences under the UAPA, the seriousness of the charges and the conduct of the accused during trial can outweigh even long periods of pre-trial detention. The judgment also makes clear that accused persons cannot benefit from delays of their own making to secure bail in terror-related prosecutions.
Date of Decision: 29 July 2025
