- 1 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1824/2024 (21(NIA)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED SHARIFF S/O AHMED SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.58/2, 3RD MAIN 2ND STAGE, TIPPUSULTAN ROAD M.S.PALYA, VIDHYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 097 …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.G.HALLI POLICE STATION NOW UNDER INVESTIGATION BY NIA REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF NIA ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2024 IN SPL.C.NO.141/2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT AGENCY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B R/W 147 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 16, 18 AND 20 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 1967 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL CASES FOR NIA CASES), CCH-50, BENGALURU AND GRANT BAIL. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the order of rejection of his bail application, accused No.25 in Special Case No.141/2021 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for the trial of NIA cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal. 2. Appellant and 137 other accused are being tried in Spl.C.No.141/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of IPC, Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act’) and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984/Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by NIA in R.C.35/2020/NIA/DLI. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) That SDPI in Bengaluru was unhappy with the decisions of the Central Government on certain matters viz., repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, issuance of CAA/NRC, - 3 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 Supreme Court’s verdict in Babri masjid and Triple Talak cases. SDPI members actively participated in the agitation against the Government on those issues. They were waiting to create communal disharmony and unrest in the country. Accordingly accused Nos.1, 2, 25 and other SDPI Bengaluru District leaders hatched criminal conspiracy and decided to post some derogatory message to insult and provoke Hindu Gods and Hindu Community through accused No.1’s facebook account who has thousands of Hindu followers on facebook. They intentionally selected 11.08.2020 an auspicious day for Hindus i.e., the day of Sri Krishna Janmashtami to post the message. Meanwhile the SDPI cadres were well prepared to respond to any situation arising out of such incident and to execute their plans to commit violent acts to garner the support of the Muslim community. (ii) In execution of such conspiracy, accused No.1 on 11.08.2020 posted a video/audio clip containing a derogatory comment made by one Murugesh Nirani/MLA offending Hindu deities, deliberately tagging the same to P.Naveen, a nephew of Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy, MLA of Pulakeshinagar Constituency so that he responds to the same and they can indulge in violence. As expected said P.Naveen responded posting a cartoon picture with comment on Prophet Mohammed. - 4 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 (iii) Appellant and other accused held conspiracy meeting at SDPI Office, Nagawara to commit violent acts by attacking the police personnel. They also decided to file maximum number of complaints against P.Naveen in different police stations at Bengaluru to pressurize the police and the Government. After such conspiracy meeting, appellant/accused No.25 being the District President of SDPI, Bengaluru remained at Nagawara Ward to coordinate the activities in furtherance of the conspiracy. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and other accused including the SDPI ward members reached Kadugondanahalli police station (for short ‘K.G.Halli Police Station’) for filing FIRs, mobilizing SDPI cadres and to attack the police station and police personnel. (iv) That on 11.08.2020 at 8.45 p.m. accused who were initially about 25 to 30 in numbers, gathered in-front of K.G.Halli Police Station and began shouting slogans demanding the arrest of P.Naveen. By 8.50 p.m. number swollen and all accused led by accused No.14 entered the premises of K.G Halli Police Station demanding registration of FIR against P.Naveen. By that time on the same allegations, FIR was already registered in Crime No.195/2020 of D.J Halli Police station, Bengaluru. Despite K.G.Halli police informing the accused that in view of such FIR, again other complaints for the same crime - 5 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 cannot be entertained, the mob insisting to register the case became violent. To manage the situation, K.G.Halli police accepted complaints and on the basis of the complaints of accused, registered cases in NCR Nos.384 to 387 of 2020. (v) Despite that, accused and other protesters instigated by prime accused became unruly forcing the police to impose curfew within the jurisdiction of both K.G Halli and D.J Halli police stations to bring the situation under control. However, accused insisting to handover P.Naveen to their custody, started vandalizing the police station, pelted stones and threw petrol packed in plastic covers and in bottles on the police personnel, forcing police to resort to lathi charge. Mob attempted to snatch weapons from the police personnel and kill them, which led to an order to open fire resulting in death of one person. Rioters set 12 government and private vehicles on fire pouring petrol, inflicted injuries on the police personnel obstructing them from discharging their official duties. The loss caused due to such destruction of properties was to the tune of Rs.13,62,325/-. (vi) Appellant/accused No.25 is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 147 of IPC and Sections 16, 18, 20 of UAP Act. - 6 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 4. The earlier bail application of appellant/accused No.25 was rejected by the trial Court on 27.08.2021 on considering the merits. The said order was confirmed by this Court on 30.03.2022 in Crl.A.No.1448/2021. Therefore, the appellant can succeed in this matter only if there is any changed circumstance. The changed circumstance urged by Sri Shankarappa, learned Amicus Curiae is that the appellant is in judicial custody since more than 5 years, the trial has not yet commenced and the same is not likely to be concluded in near future. 5. Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the first application of the appellant for bail was dismissed on merits and the said order was confirmed by this Court and that order has attained finality. He further submitted that the rejection of the bail application of the co-accused is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and absolutely there is no changed circumstance in the matter. 6. Admittedly the trial Court on considering the merits of the case had rejected the first bail application of the appellant on 27.08.2021. Crl.A.No.1448/2021 filed against the said order was dismissed on 30.03.2022 by detailed judgment consisting of 51 pages. Crl.A.No.828/2024 filed by accused - 7 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 No.5 challenging the rejection of his bail application was dismissed by this Court. The said order has attained finality. 7. So far as delay in trial, learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that the accused themselves had stalled framing of the charges and the trial by filing innumerable applications either for bail or for discharge and all such applications were rejected by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor produced the copy of the order dated 29.07.2025 in Crl.A.No.767/2024 c/w Crl.A.No.34/2024 (NIA). Those appeals were filed by the co-accused on the same ground of delay in trial. In the said judgment this Court has observed that the accused have adopted strategy of filing individual successive applications for bail or discharge, though they were represented by common set of lawyers. It is further observed that the accused for their own benefit, in a calculated manner abusing the process of Court are exhausting time and resources of the trial Court and have obstructed the trial Court from reaching the stage of trial. Now they are trying to make delay caused by them only, as foundation to seek bail. It is held that the delay can be imputed neither to the prosecution nor to the trial Court but only to the - 8 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 accused themselves and such unfair practice is highly deprecable. 9. Sri Shankarappa, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that subsequent to filing of this appeal the trial Court, on accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 pleading guilty, has sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offences under UAP Act and appellant stands on the same footing, at the most appellant will also be sentenced to seven years imprisonment and he has already undergone more than half of the said sentence period, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb1, he is entitled to grant of bail. 10. Appellant is facing charges of indulging in terrorist acts, questioning sovereignty of the State by vandalizing police station duly established by the State and assaulting the police to prevent them from discharging their duties. Bail applications of appellant and co-accused were rejected finding material against them and those orders have attained finality. The writ petition filed by co-accused for quashing the proceedings and their applications for discharge from the offences under UAP Act have been rejected and charges are framed against them under 1 (2021) 3 SCC 713 - 9 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 the aforesaid Act. In the incident one person has died. The offence under Section 16 of UAP Act carries punishment for death/imprisonment for life. 11. The trial Court finding remorse on the part of accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 for their acts and possibility of their reformation has sentenced them for offences under UAP Act to rigorous imprisonment of seven years etc. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows: “………The mitigating circumstance is that the offenders voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges and have expressed deep remorse for their actions, seeking an opportunity for reform. ………………………… …………………………In this case, the offenders remorse and their voluntary guilty plea indicate that a sentence at the minimum level would be proportionate to the crime committed…….” (Emphasis supplied) 12. As the appellant has not pleaded guilty nor showed any remorse and having regard to the punishment prescribed, at this stage, it is premature to say or prejudge that appellant will also be sentenced to seven years imprisonment only or to seek parity with accused Nos.14, 16 and 18. Hence, the judgment in Najeeb’s case cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. In fact in para 15 of the judgment in Najeeb’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that if - 10 - CRL.A No.1824/2024 the offender is likely to risk the society, the Court has to decide whether individual ought to be released pending trial or not. The said observation reads as follows: 15. …………………………. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to the society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not………” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the light of the above discussion it cannot be said that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily or in a perverse manner in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The appeal deserves no merit. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The Court places on record the able assistance rendered by Sri Shankarappa, learned Amicus Curiae. Registry shall disburse him the admissible honorarium. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE AKC