Karnataka HC Rejects Bail Plea Of Bengaluru Riots Case Accused As Charges Prima Facie Amount To 'Act Of Terror'

Karnataka High Court has denied bail to an accused in the Bengaluru Riots case, saying that the charges against him are prima facie proved.

The court refused to grant bail to Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) KG Halli ward president Imran Ahmed in the Bengaluru violence case of August 2020, as reported.

The division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe denied Ahmed bail on the grounds that the allegations are serious in nature and the act amounts to a ‘terrorist act’ as per sections 15 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967.

But as per the petition filed by the accused, the Bengaluru riots were a ‘peaceful gathering before the police station’ that had gone unruly and hence cannot be described as a 'terrorist act'.

The petitioner contended that the action would fall under the ambit of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and sought bail on the grounds that ‘mere participation in a protest‘ before the police station against the derogatory post and insistence of suitable action does not amount to ‘intension or premeditation to inflict violence’.

Ahmed‘s plea for bail was moved in the High Court after being dismissed by the special court for NIA cases.

The bench, while refusing the plea, noted that the policemen who had been named as witnesses in the chargesheet have identified Ahmed among others as pouring petrol and setting ablaze a bike parked near the KG Halli police station.

Ahmed is also accused of having convened a meeting before the incident took place, instigating others to engage in violence.

As per a report by a fact-finding committee, that Swarajya earlier wrote about, two police stations were damaged, two houses gutted, two bars burnt and destroyed completely, 36 government vehicles including 2 DCPs' vehicles burnt completely and 68 vehicles belonging to civilians parked on the streets partially damaged.

A total of 1,200 people had been named as accused in the 72 FIRs filed in the case, and of the 10 key accused, five had been identified as prominent members of the SDPI.