Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to around 126 people, who were arrested by the police for an unlawful assembly. It was claimed that they intended to spread the Corona infection and obstruct the medical facilities. It was alleged that the medical officers and the police were obstructed from identifying and shifting the COVID-19 patients from the Padarayanapura area to the Quarantine area. Justice John Michael said that the prosecution has a long way to sustain the charges against the petitioners. No prima facie material was there to prove an offense under Section 307 of the IPC. The Prosecutor projected no damage to the property. The compelling circumstances were not made out to deny bail to the petitioners.
They were charged under the Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Destruction and the Loss of Property Act. The charges included Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act. The sections 506, 147, 148, 149, 324, 332, 307, 269, 323, 201, 271 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code were included. The Advocate on behalf of the petitioners argued that the petitioners were arrested on the basis of a mere suspicion. They were unlawfully detained. The petitioners had no intention to cause any grievous injury. The prosecution relied on the wound certificates, which indicated that the complainants and the witnesses had suffered some contusions and abrasions. No offense under the Section 307 of the IPC was proved adequate.
The Special Public Prosecutor VM Sheelavant opposed the bail plea. He argued that the seven accused were found positive with the virus. If they are released on bail, then they would again enter the sealed place of the incident. It will lead to an increased infection. Justice Cuna rejected this and considered it as an inadequate reason. The Court doubted the police version of the case. Not a single witness was cited from the general public. The medical officers stated that none of the policemen was attacked or assaulted in the presence of 50-60 people.
The prosecution presented only the statements of the police witnesses. The statements of the police were stereotyped. The police said that the stones were pelted at them. All sustained contusions, except the two. The possession of deadly weapons was disapproved. The petitioners were in custody since the incident. No investigating agency tried to identify them. The identity and participation of the accused had to be fixed under the section 143 of the IPC. The Court directed release of the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and the two sureties. If they disregard any of the guidelines, then the bail can be cancelled.
86540
103860
630
114
59824