K’taka Congress MLA’s Son Nalapad Haris Denied Bail In Assault Case [Read Order]

A Bengaluru court on Saturday denied bail to Mohammed Nalpad Haris, son of Congress MLA NA Haris who is in judicial custody for allegedly assaulting Vidvat Loganathan, son of a businessman.

Additional City Civil & Sessions judge Parameshwara Prasanna B denied bail to Nalapad and co-accused Krishna while considering the gravity of offence and the fact that they followed the victim to the hospital and extended threats to his life and the police have not yet recorded the statement of the victim.

“It is pertinent to note that; victim is not yet discharged from the hospital. The statement of victim is not yet recorded and the investigation is at preliminary stage. The material on record shows that currently the victim has been shifted from ICU to the ward in the hospital. But the shifting of the victim to the ward from ICU does not lower the gravity of his conditions or the case.

“By considering the nature of accusations against petitioner, nature of evidence in support thereof, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, pendency of further investigation, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and the larger interest of the public and State, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail atleast till the completion of investigation,” the judge said while declining bail to Nalapad and co-accused.

The 28-year-old Nalapad and others were booked and jailed on February 21 for allegedly assaulting Vidvat in a restaurant at UB City on the night of February 17.

Nalapad was the general secretary of the Bengaluru District Youth Congress but was suspended after the incident. He surrendered before Cubbon Park Police in Bengaluru on February 19.

A complaint was registered on the statement of Vidvat’s friend Praveen who said Nalapad picked up an argument as Vidvat could not fold his leg which was cast in a plaster following a fracture. This irked Nalapad and assaulted Vidvat with ice buckets, bottles etc and hurled punches and abuses till he lost consciousness and was raced to Mallya Hospital.

The accused then followed him to the hospital and extended life threats to the victim.

In his bail plea, Nalapad argued that the incident is hyped as the family of victim in the case is highly influential. He said he does not have any records of criminal history. The attack was not intentional and assault was on spur of moment and he himself surrendered before the police.

Special Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the bail plea saying Vidvat’s condition is highly vulnerable and his statement could not be secured by the IO, since the doctors have opined that his condition is not fit for the same.

He also relied on CCTV footage of the restaurant and the hospital to show Nalapad’s “barbaric” acts.

“There is a prima facie evidence to show that the accused tried to kill the victim –Vidvat by seriously assaulting him with lethal objects. As has been noticed and spoken to by the witnesses, there is a dense component of barbarism and total inhumanity in the attack. The victim was hit repeatedly with objects like heavy glass liquor bottles, knuckle rings, an ice-jug and he was randomly kicked, dragged and beaten up even when he was profusely bleeding, crying helplessly and fell unconscious,”’ said the prosecutor.

After hearing the arguments, the court said, “In the instant case, the allegations in the 1st information, further statement of 1st informant and statement of eye witnesses regarding the manner in which the offences were committed, behaviour of accused during incident, weapons/ articles used for assault, nature of blows inflicted on victim, role played by accused, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, the act of accused in following the victim to the hospital and giving life threat to the victim even in the hospital clearly prima facie attracts ingredients of Section 307 of IPC”.

The court relied on the Supreme Court verdict in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2016 wherein it was held that, “We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the Society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilized Society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the Society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the Society and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus…”

The court then went on to observe, “In the factual matrix of this case, I am of the considered opinion that there is prima facie and reasonable ground at this stage for believing that the petitioner and other co-accused have committed the alleged offences. Among the offences alleged against the petitioner, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life”.