The main legal point established in the judgment is that the apprehension of the petitioners spreading the virus cannot be a ground to deny bail, as adequate safeguards are in place to prevent the spread of the pandemic.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners, in all, 126 persons were taken into custody by the respondent - Police on the allegation that, on 19.04.2020, at about 6.30 p.m. and 6.50 p.m., the petitioners/accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly with intention to spread Corona infection and obstructed the medical officers attached to the BBMP from lawfully discharging their official duties and also obstructed the complainant and the police personnel on duty by pelting stones on the police and assaulting them with knife, rods and clubs, making an attempt on the life of the police personnel and during the occurrence, damaged the chairs, tables kept in the check-post and caused extensive damage to the public property.

2. The PSI of JJ Nagar Police Station CW.1 lodged a report based on which Crime No.71/2020 was registered and the petitioners herein were arrested on different dates and were remanded to judicial custody. The application filed by the petitioners for their release on bail has been rejected by the Closure Period Judge at Bengaluru (Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru) in C.Crl.Misc.No.41/2020 dated 05.05.2020, mainly on the ground that the facts and allegations made in the FIR reveal that on the date of the incident, all the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons and damaged public property and caused injury to public servants. It has been observed that the accused persons were motivated to commit rioting with a preplan and in the process, assaulted public servants and violated the promulgation notified by the Government. Further observing that the petitioners were required to be identified by the witnesses and that the Investigating Officer had to collect evidence to assess the total damage caused to public property, learned Sessions Judge found it proper to reject the application. On dismissal of the said application, petitioners have approached this Court under section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.Muiz Ahmed Khan Usmani, learned counsel, on behalf of petitioners and Sri.V.M.Sheelavant, learned SPP-I on behalf of respondent State.

4. The State has filed statement of objections opposing the bail inter alia contending that prima facie material has been collected establishing the presence of the petitioners at the spot of occurrence. The petitioners were found indulging in similar offences at five different places in respect of which five cases have been registered against the petitioners in Crime Nos.70/2020, 71/2020, 72/2020, 73/2020 and 74/2020. Each incident is a separate offence. During the occurrence, complainant and other witnesses have suffered grievous injuries. The statements of the eyewitnesses also have been recorded. Amongst the petitioners, seven were tested positive for COVID- 19 and hence, accused persons were quarantined at Haj Bhavan. Under the said circumstances, if the petitioners are released on bail, they would once again enter the place of incident, which is presently under seal down and there are chances of infection spreading to the entire locality. Further it is stated that the interim charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners with respect to the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and under sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 201, 353, 333, 323, 324, 506, 269, 271, 188 read with 149 IPC and section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act. Further investigation is still in progress and permission under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is sought before the Trial Court. Further contending that the sovereignty, fraternity and integrity of the country takes precedence over Article 21 of the Constitution, respondent No.1/State has sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners however contended that the allegations made against the petitioners are bald in nature. None of the petitioners were named in the FIR. All