Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two criminal appeals filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking bail in connection with Crime No.208/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station (later transferred to DJ Halli PS) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 435, 436, 448, 395 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, and Sections 3(1)(c)(r), 3(2)(iii), (v), (v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The case arises from a mob attack on a police station and property destruction in the DJ Halli area. The appellants, Shek Muneer Ahamed @ Muneer Ahamed and Junaid Khan, were arrested and their bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge. They appealed to the High Court. The court considered the arguments of the appellants' counsel that they were innocent, had been in custody for over 10 months, and that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing the gravity of the offences and the appellants' involvement in the mob. The court analyzed the material on record, including the charge sheet and the role attributed to each appellant. It noted that the appellants were not named in the FIR and their involvement was based on statements of witnesses. The court found that the appellants' case was similar to that of co-accused who had been granted bail. It held that the appellants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity, considering the length of incarceration and the unlikelihood of early trial conclusion. The court allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the release of the appellants on bail subject to conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, appearing before the court regularly, not tampering with evidence, and not committing similar offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 14-A SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 - Parity - The appellant sought bail in a case involving offences under IPC and SC/ST Act arising from a mob attack. The court held that since co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail, the appellant was entitled to bail on parity, subject to conditions. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Length of Incarceration - The appellant had been in custody for over 10 months. The court considered that trial was not likely to conclude soon, and continued incarceration would be harsh. (Para 11) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Seriousness of Offence - The offences alleged included rioting, arson, and dacoity. However, the court noted that the appellant's specific role was not distinct from that of bailed co-accused, and bail was granted with stringent conditions. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed, and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail.
Final Decision
Both criminal appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.01.2021 and 19.01.2021 passed by the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 and Crl.Misc.No.7049/2020 are set aside. The appellants shall be released on bail in Crime No.208/2020 (now Spl.C.No.758/2020) on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions including appearing before the court regularly, not tampering with evidence, and not committing similar offences.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (POA) Act
- 1989
- Parity with co-accused
- Length of incarceration
- Seriousness of offence
- Likelihood of trial conclusion
