Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.
Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.
“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.
In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.
‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’
Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.
“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.
In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.
“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.
The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.
Comments
What is ur problem Mr ,go and do ur business don't interfere in our rights.
Someone must check Christina's adhar card sorry, ur id card Whether she Indian or not.
For my sisters you don't go to such college you can go to Madarasha it's best for you in this life and hereafter best education where you get .for the principal first change ur name.
why you send muslim girls to clg.. let them sit at home and help your parents problem is slowed. PFI brother dont waste your time and do not encourage
why muslim girls students using mobile can you stop tiz some of our muslim girl students roaming inside city centre can you stop tiz mybrother
go and wacth inside city centre on friday after many our commuinty student weariing hijab and roaming with their boy friend kindly try to stop tiz
I request the principles sister to were a normal dress insted of religious dress she is wearing , let her be an example for the rules she has set.
I am asking now only muslims wake up when any some so called muslims their marriges arraenging in this christhian churches why? in mangalore no muslim marrige halls ? these all are only for gimik. The college was against the sharia simply, change the college why this college only. if done like this this kind of all colleges they learn lesson .
Their marriage halls we have issue their they cooking haram things & we also cooking hallal then we no problem, because this all our dignity .throw your dignity follow Quran & Sunnah and became original muslim
If clg rules are against democracy we hv to chnge clg rules not our rights.
When injustice becomes law be on the side of justice
thn islam is peace & beautiful bt the systems are against islam thn this islam also hv certain stratagy & thts thought by prophet (s.a)
Secular? If right to cover the head is not secular for you, then there are million christians/hindu women out there wearing head scarfs including former President Prathiba Patil. So, you mean to say that they all cannot have education in India?
Ughhhhh. Individual choice yes. But college has certain rules. You don't want to follow the rules, you don't join that particular college. Also, Islam is a very beautiful religion. Let's not make it all about the Hijab.
100% they are Indians as they are fighting for their rights which is guaranteed by INDIAN CONSTITUTION. Now could you pls chek your voter ID and of the Principal who made rules against the constitution which is legally termed as Anti-Indian rule.
How can this Principal wearing head scarf frame college laws which is against to the constitution of India. Why she is allowing her sibling nuns wearing Hijab like dress and head scarf attend classes in the same college? What is her hidden agenda? How can she justify her draconian dictat??
Someone must check the voter IDs of protesters to find out whether they are really Indians
Why do these bigots go to a secular college if they want Taliban rules?
At one side head of the institutions are wearing head scarf and allowing Christion nuns whose dress code includes head scarf to follow their tradition. On the other side they are objecting Muslim girls to wear head scarf which is similar as their scarf. May I call it as #hypocrisy
Please decent girls don’t go to that college.
Students all are equal in the college
Add new comment