2020 Bengaluru Riots: Supreme Court Denies Bail To Accused, Directs Karnataka Govt To Establish Additional NIA Court For UAPA Offences

The Supreme Court today(February 13) declined to grant bail to Shabbar Khan, charge-sheeted in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 case related to the riots which happened in Bengaluru on August 11, 2020. The riots reportedly happened over a Facebook post where derogatory comments were allegedly made about Prophet Muhammad.

In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is responsible along with a mob for burning motorcycles. FIR was registered against 198, out of which 138 people have been chargesheeted. Out of 138, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 charges have been imposed against 25.

As per the National Investigation Agency(NIA), the members of the Social Democratic Party of India(SDPI), the political wing of the proscribed Popular Front of India, were involved, including Shabbar Khan. Reportedly, the members conspired to mobilise a larger crowd which gathered at D.J. Halli and KG Halli police stations on the night of August 11 to attack police personnel and cause vandalism to the public and police station vehicles.

Initially, the petitioner's name was not there in the first information report lodged by the State police. Later, the NIA took over the investigation and the petitioner was also named in it. 

On January 31, the matter was heard by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, the Court asked the National Investigation Agency(NIA) how much time it would take for the trial court to frame charges and commence trial against the accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case. This was after Senior Advocate P Vishwanath Shetty, for Shabbar Khan, brought to the attention of the Court that only one NIA Court is there for the State of Karnataka. 

Shetty also submitted that the petitioner has undergone 4 years and 1 month years of incarceration and the trial court has not been able to frame charges. It was pointed out that 254 witnesses are pending to be examined. Reliance was put on judgments in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2024) and 2021 KA Najeeb to argue that bail can be granted if there has been a long period of incarceration and unlikelihood of trial. 

When Shetty referred to the evidence against the petitioner, Justice Nagarathna said: "We cannot have a mini-trial here."

Against this, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju vehemently opposed the bail plea and also added that the petitioner was responsible for the delay. However, the Court did not say anything on that aspect.

While the Court said it was not inclined to interfere with the August 30, 2024, order of the Karnataka High Court denying him bail, the Court passed certain directions. 

It said:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the matter. However, during the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice the fact that the High Court in the case of Shoheb Ali @ Shajid Ali vs The State By Karnataka (2023) has recorded in paragraph 49 and 50 of the said order that there are as many as 31 NIA cases pending before the Special Court, NIA, pertaining to different years. The details are of which are as under...the learned senior counsel submitted that apart from 31 NIA cases, 53 sessions cases and 2 criminal miscellaneous matters are pending before the Special Court as on 31 March 2023.

That in the instant case, in respect of the incident, 11-8-2020, as many as 254 witnesses have been listed before the Special Court with respect of this trial by NIA. In the circumstances, we direct that there shall be compliance of Section 11 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and in this regard, our attention was drawn by learned ASG on the proposal of MHA for setting up of exclusive courts for trial of NIA cases and communication issued by said Ministry dated 7-10-2924 to the State Government and Registrar General of High Court seeking their comment/consent for instituting of exclusive court at Bengaluru. It was brought to our notice that State Government has directed for setting up of Special Courts for UAPA cases registered by State police pursuant to order 2-4-2023 in criminal appeal...The direction issued to State Government to establish special courts in Mysore, Belagavi and Kalburgi Division within 6 months of the order has not been complied with. 

Having regards to aforesaid submissions advanced by senior counsel for the petitioner, who has emphasised on the inordinate delay that this matter would take in disposal and bearing in mind the submissions of ASG, we find that the directions issued by the High Court in Criminal Appeal 72/2023 connected with criminal appeal 183/2023 must be complied with in letter and spirit as expeditiously as possible. It is needless to observe that learned Registrar General of High Court in consultation with State Government and after obtaining orders from hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court coordinate with the establishment of an additional NIA Court for UAPA offences which are being investigated by State or NIA. Said exercise shall be completed with 3 months.