Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J
Syed Adnaan, S/o Irfan Pasha - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, By Deverajeevenahalli P.S., - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.251/2021 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.420/2021, 543/2021, 478/2021
Decided On : 22-06-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 172, 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 143, 144, 145, 447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427, 212, 120B r/w 149 – Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act – Section 2 – SC/ST (POA) Act – Section 3 – Arms Act – Section 25 – Offence of Conspiracy – Derogatory statement made about Prophet Muhammad – Riot – Destruction – Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) praying to (a) set aside order passed by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl. Misc. in dismissing bail petition filed by appellant, appellant/accused No.61 (b) allow this appeal and release appellant-accused No.61 on bail in D.J. Hdlli P.S., Bangalore Cr. for alleged offences p/u/s 143, 144, 145, 447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427, 212, 120B r/w 149 of IPC and Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act and Section 3(2)(iii)(iv)(v)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 25 (IB) (b) of Arms Act on file of learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore (CCH-71).
Finding of the Court:
It is only statement of CW-8 recorded with considerable delay only on 02.09.2020, which speaks of invoivement of appellant – In absence of any specific identification or C.C. TV footage to corroborate with statement of CW-8, it cannot be stated that material on record makes out a prima facie case of involvement of appellant – It needs to be noted that order disposing of Crl.Mis. was at time when investigation was still in progress, even when Crl.Misc. was disposed off, though first charge sheet was filed, it was stand of Prosecution as reflected in Para 12 of order that further investigation was in progress – In fact, second charge sheet came to be filed – Accused No.29 was enlarged on bail by a detailed considered order in Crl.A. vide order Accused No.34 was released as per order, Accused No.35 was enlarged on bail as per order – Such orders having been passed subsequent to order in Crl.Mis. petition filed in Crl.Mis. disposed off after enlargement of Accused No 29 on bail could be stated to be a subsequent development entitling reconsideration of applicant on for enlargement on bail – Even after substantial investigation is concluded with no further incriminatory material against appellant having been putforth in subsequent charge sheet, appellants have made out a case for being enlarged on bail – Even on ground of parity, in light of enlargement of Accused No.29 on bail, as regards whom serious allegations were made supported by statement of witnesses imputing that said Accused had set fire to vehicles outside second respondent's house and set fire to house of second respondent, present appellant is in a position entitling him to be treated on par with Accused No.29 and to be enlarged on bail on principle of parity – Bail Granted
Result :Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants in all these cases have been arrayed as Accused in Crime No.219/2020 (Spl.C.No.744/2020) registered by the Devarajeevanahalli Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC, under Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, under Sections 3(1)(c), 3(2),(iii),(iv),(v),(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ['SC & ST (POA) Act' for brevity] and Section 25(1B)(b) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
2. As the factual matrix of the incident leading to the registration of the F.I.R. is identical and all of the Accused who are appellants herein have been arrayed as Accused in Crime No.219/2020, it is deemed appropriate to decide all these appeals by this common judgment.
3. All the Accused having been arrested and having approached the LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) and their petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. having been dismissed, have invoked the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Act challenging the order of rejection of bail petitions and are seeking to be enlarged on bail.
4. The complaint came to be filed by the second respondent -complainant on 14.08.2020 stating that on 11.08.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., some miscreants had trespassed into the house of complainant and had taken away the documents and jewellery and destroyed his house by setting it on fire. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the complainant and his brothers, Mr.Chandrashekar and Mr.Mahesh Kumar were jointly residing in the premises and that on 11.08.2020 as it was 'Krishna Janmashtami', while the family members of the complainant had gone to the Temple and when the complainant was not at home, at about 8.00 p.m., a mob of about 2,000 to 3,000 miscreants with a pre-meditated intention, armed with weapons had broken into the complainant's house and had taken away the documents and jewellery, and had set fire to the cars and two-wheelers that were parked outside the house.
5. It is further stated in the complaint that Mr.Naveen, who is the nephew of respondent No.2 had posted on his Facebook account a derogatory post about Prophet Mohammed and the Accused having entered into a conspiracy, taking advantage of the situation have attacked the house of respondent No.2 causing loss to the property. It is stated that the incident was the product of a pre-planned conspiracy to burn the family alive and hence, a complaint was lodged with the Police to take necessary action.
6. It is further stated that as the complainant was a Member of Legislative Assembly and upon advice by the Police Authorities, who had requested him not to visit the scene of the accident in light of law and order situation, maintenance of peace and security, he visited his house with Police security only on 13.08.2020 and it is thereafter that the complaint came to be lodged with the Police detailing the loss of property.
7. The Police Authorities on completion of investigation had filed the charge sheet on 14.09.2020 as regards all the Accused, except Accused Nos.57 to 61 and other Accused who were subject matter of third charge sheet, as the said Accused were absconding / unavailable at the relevant point of time. The second charge sheet came to be filed on 05.01.2021 against the remaining Accused Nos.57 to 61 and the third charge sheet came to be filed on 15.02.2021 as regards Accused Nos.12, 10, 62 and 63.
8. The details of imputation against the Accused, who are appellants herein is reflected in the Table below:-
| Criminal Appeal No. | Name and serial number of accused | Offences in the charge sheet against the accused |
| 251/2021 | Syed Adnaan (A-26) | 143, 144, 145, 447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427 120- |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
