The rejection of a discharge application under the UAPA is classified as an intermediate order, allowing for appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, and the High Court's intervention is limited to exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 18, 20 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Writ petition challenging the rejection of discharge application - The petitioners contended insufficient evidence for charges under UAPA - The Special Court ruled that sufficient material exists to proceed to trial, hence the discharge application was rejected. (Paras 1, 3, 17)

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked in exceptional cases despite the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 21 of the NIA Act - The rejection of discharge application is classified as an intermediate order affecting the rights of the accused. (Paras 6, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused of various offences including those under UAPA, sought discharge arguing lack of evidence. The Special Court rejected their application, prompting the writ petition. The protests leading to the charges were in response to derogatory comments posted online, escalating to violence. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the discharge application is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order, allowing the trial to proceed. The petitioners failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting High Court intervention. (Paras 15, 19)

Issues: Whether the rejection of a discharge application is an interlocutory order under Section 21 of the NIA Act and if the High Court can intervene under Article 226 despite the statutory remedy. (Paras 7, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the rejection of discharge applications significantly impacts the accused's rights and is thus an intermediate order, allowing for appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The High Court's intervention is permissible only in rare cases of clear abuse of process. (Paras 17, 19)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

Accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are before this Court assailing the order dated 05.08.2024 of the Special Court for trial of NIA Cases in Special Case No.141/2021 rejecting their application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge them of the offences punishable under Sections 6, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.08.2020 that around 8.45 p.m., 25 to 30 people gathered around Kadugondana (KG) Halli Police Station, protesting and demanding arrest of one P. Naveen, nephew of one local MLA. They were upset over derogatory comments allegedly posted by P. Naveen which insulted a specific community. By 8.50 p.m. a group of people led by others entered the police station premises demanding registration of case against Naveen and others. The police accepted the complaint and registered it for a preliminary enquiry noting that a similar case had already been registered at D.J. Halli police station, Bengaluru against the said Naveen on the same day. However, the protestors became increasingly violent, which prompted the Police Commissioner to impose curfew at both police station jurisdictions to bring the situation under control. The protestors became more violent, started shouting slogans and insisted that the police hand over P. Naveen to them. As the situation escalated, the police used lathi charge to disperse the crowd, but the mob grew more aggressive attempting to snatch weapons from the police and even attempting to kill officers. In an effort to protect themselves and public property, the police fired upon the crowd resulting in the death of one person. The rioters also damaged all the government and private vehicles and caused injuries to several police personnel. Following this, the police inspector of KG Halli police station filed first information report (FIR) and the case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 427 and 436 of IPC and Section 4 of the PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 against the accused persons and investigation officer took up the accused for investigation. On 21.09.2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India recognizing the gravity of offence directed the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation. Consequently, the NIA registered the case for offences punishable under various sections including Sections 16 , 18, and 20 of the UAP Act along with other Sections of IPC as stated supra. The NIA further investigated the case and gathering evidence against the accused submitted the final report to the Court. Following this, the Court took the cognizance of the offences and the case was registered against the accused persons.

3. The petitioners herein are being prosecuted under the UAPA and also for other offences under IPC. The petitioners sought discharge for the offences punishable under UAPA investigated by the NIA. The petitioners filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 16 , 18 and 20 of UAPA contending that the prosecution lacked evidence and the charges levelled against the petitioners under UAPA were not made out. The Special Court rejected the discharge application, stating that there is sufficient material to proceed to trial.

4. We have heard the learned counsel Sri Mohammed Tahir appearing for the petitioners and Sri P Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the NIA-respondent submits that the order of framing charges and rejection of discharge application is not an interlocutory order in nature, but part of the trial process and hence not barred under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act. Learned counsel would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have alternative statutor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document