The Karnataka High Court has denied bail to three individuals implicated in the murder of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker Praveen Nettaru. A Division Bench of Justices H.B. Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti ruled that there was substantial evidence indicating their active involvement in the crime, potentially constituting a terrorist act under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (Hereinafter referred to a UAP Act). The Court highlighted the conspiracy and corroborating evidence, concluding that the accusations against the three accused were prima facie true and therefore rejected their bail applications.
In April this year, the Special NIA Court had already denied bail to the three accused, namely Ismail Shafi K, K Mahammad Iqbal, and Shaheed M, all of whom were associated with the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Among them, two of the accused had challenged the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) allegations, asserting that they had been falsely accused of delivering incendiary speeches at the funeral of a teenager. They were also accused of threatening to retaliate by targeting prominent Hindu community leaders. Additionally, one of the appellants was implicated in preparing a detailed sketch outlining the plan to attack the victim.
It's worth noting that the High Court underscored that physical presence at the time of Nettaru's attack wasn't a mandatory condition for conspiracy charges. The Court highlighted that all three accused had participated in a conspiracy meeting and discussed the plot to eliminate Nettaru.
The allegations of delivering inflammatory speeches found support in statements from four protected witnesses, and the investigating officer had collected call records between the accused's mobile phones to establish the existence of a conspiracy.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that a terrorist act need not be carried out exclusively by an organisation. Section 15 of the UAP Act employs the term "whoever" and encompasses "any person" committing such acts.
The High Court concluded that the accused had played distinct, active, and significant roles in the murder. Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, the Court found reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the three accused were prima facie valid, resulting in the rejection of their bail petitions.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
