[Cites 41, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Afzal Basha vs National Investigation Agency on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
CRL.A No.1425/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1425/2025 (21(NIA))
BETWEEN:
MR.AFZAL BASHA
S/O AHMED PASHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.144, 5TH CROSS
BANGARAGIRINAGAR
J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AKARSH S KANADE, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.DIVYA A.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX
Digitally OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA
signed by K S BANGALORE - 560 001 ...RESPONDENT
RENUKAMBA
Location: (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P.)
High Court of
Karnataka THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008 READ WITH
SECTION 483 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.03.2025 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES) BENGALURU IN
SPL.C.NO.152/2021 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 307,
436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506, 149 AND 34 OF IPC AND SECTION
4 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT 1984 AND
SECTION 2 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND
LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT, 1981 AND SECTIONS 15, 16, 18, 20 OF THE
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 1967 AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
CRL.A No.1425/2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 10.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Challenging the order of rejection of his bail application,
accused No.5 in Spl.C.No.152/2021 on the file of XLIX Additional
City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Judge for the trial of NIA
Cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant and 145 others have been charge sheeted
in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 15,
16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
(for short 'UAP Act'), Sections 143, 147, 307, 436, 353, 332,
333, 427, 504, 506 read with Sections 149 and 34 of IPC,
Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984 and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction
and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for short 'KPDLP Act'). Against
appellant, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UAP Act, Sections 120B,
34, 149 read with Sections 143, 145, 147, 188, 427, 436 and
353 of IPC and Section 2 of KPDLP Act was invoked.
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
3. Appellant filed bail application before the trial Court
claiming that he is falsely implicated in the case and he is in
judicial custody since five years without trial. The same was
opposed by the prosecution. The trial Court on hearing the
parties by the impugned judgment and order has rejected his
bail application on the following grounds:
(i) That there is prima-facie material to show
involvement of the appellant in the crime.
(ii) Delay in trial is because of the calculated acts of the
accused themselves. Therefore appellant cannot make the same
as ground.
(iii) Section 43D(5) of UAP Act bars grant of bail as
prima-facie case is forthcoming against the appellant.
4. The said order is challenged in the above case.
Heard both side.
5. Sri Akarsh S Kanade, learned Counsel for the
appellant reiterating the ground of appeal and grounds urged
before the trial Court contended that the appellant is falsely
implicated in the case and he is in custody without trial since
five years. He also submitted that some of the co-accused have
been granted bail by the trial Court, therefore the trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
was in error in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. He
further submitted that the mother of the appellant is suffering
from carcinoma and she is solely dependant on him. Therefore,
he is entitled to bail.
6. In support of his submissions, he relied on the
following judgments:
1. Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb1
2. Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and
ors.2
3. Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar v. Directorate of Enforcement
& Anr.3
4. Muzammil Pasha & ors. v. National Investigating
Agency4
5. Ateeq Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency5
7. Per contra, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special
Public Prosecutor justifies the impugned order on the ground
that there is sufficient material to show involvement of the
appellant in antinational activities. He submits that the appellant
did not even spare the police and the police station. Absolutely
there was no delay on the part of the prosecution, it was the
strategy of the accused themselves which had led to the delay.
(2021) 3 SCC 713
(1996) 2 SCC 616
Crl.A.Nos.2601-2602/2024 D.D.16.05.2024
WP No.1417/2021 & Connected matters, D.D.10.06.2021
Crl.A.793/2024 D.D.18.06.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
So far as granting bail to some of the co-accused, he submits
that they were not facing allegations of offences under UAP Act.
Therefore parity does not apply, whereas the bail application of
the similarly situated accused were rejected by the trial Court,
confirmed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. He submits
that the judgments relied on by appellant's Counsel are not
applicable.
8. In support of his submissions, he relies on the
following judgments:
1. Shaikh Muhammed Bilal & Ors. v. National
Investigating Agency6
2. Mohammed Kaleem Ahmed v. National Investigating
Agency7
3. Imran Ahmed @ Imran Khan v. National Investigating
Agency8
4. Mohamed Shariff v. National Investigating Agency9
5. Ateeq Ahmed v. National Investigating Agency10
6. Imran Ahmed v. National Investigating Agency11
7. Suhail Basha v. National Investigating Agency12
8. Mr.Firoz Pasha v. National Investigating Agency13
9. Rubah Waqas & Ors. v. National Investigating
Agency14
Crl.A.Nos.585/2021 C/W 576/2021, 582/2021, 745/2021- D.D.15.09.2021
SLP (Crl.) No.848/2022 - D.D.28.02.2022
Crl.A.No.1640/2021 - D.D.22.12.2021
2022 SCC Online Kar 662
Crl.A.814/2022 C/w Crl.A.788/2022 - D.D.19.07.2022
Crl.A.124/2023 - D.D.29.05.2023
Crl.A.1631/2023 - D.D.25.01.2024
Crl.A.47/2024 - D.D.15.02.2024
Crl.A.827/2024 C/w Crl.A.828/2024 - D.D.30.08.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
10. Shabbar Khan v. National Investigating Agency15
11. National Investigating Agency v. Zahoor Ahmed Shah
Watali16
12. Suneel Roy v. State of U.P. & Ors.17
13. Suresh Jaiswal v. D.M., Lucknow and ors.18
14. Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka19
15. Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh20
16. Kareem @ Sadam v. State by National Investigating
Agency21
17. Mr.Ziya Ur Rehman @ Ziya v. National Investigating
Agency22
18. Mohammed Shariff v. The State of Karnataka23
9. On hearing both sides and on examination of the
materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is
"whether the impugned order of rejection of the bail
application of the accused is sustainable"?
Analysis
10. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) That prime accused in the case with some political
aspirations to grab votes of Muslims, conspired to create unrest
in the society on religious lines and in that direction to provoke
others, accused No.19 made facebook post belittling Hindu
Spl. Leave to Appeal No.17214/2024 - D.D.13.02.2025
(2019) 5 SCC 1
1998 SCC OnLine ALL 1178
1986 SCC OnLine ALL 462
(2017) 5 SCC 406
(2020) 3 SCC 321
Crl.A.No.238/2025 - D.D.01.07.2025
Crl.A.Nos.767/2024 C/W 34/2024 - D.D.29.07.2025
Crl.A.1824/2024 - D.D.07.08.2025
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
deities to invoke reaction of Naveen, a nephew of Shri Akhanda
Srinivasa Murthy, MLA of Pulakeshi Nagar constituency, tagged
him to the said post. In response to such post, Naveen posted
some message about Prophet Mohammed on his facebook.
(ii) That on 11.08.2020 at 7.45 p.m. Moulvi named
Sri Firdous Pasha had lodged the complaint before D.J.Halli
Police Station against Naveen alleging blasphemy of Prophet
Mohammed and hurting religious sentiments of persons
belonging to particular religion. Based on such complaint, first
information report was registered against him. Despite that at
8.00 p.m. accused No.4 K.M.Wajid Pasha accompanied by 50
persons gathered at D.J.Halli police station demanding arrest of
Naveen. By that time, appellant with extreme religious
ideologies on social network like whatsapp, phone calls etc.
started instigating others to assemble at D.J.Halli police station,
thus huge number of accused assembled at D.J.Halli police
station and started insisting to register their complaints though
case was already registered. They started demanding to
handover Naveen to them. Ultimately, the mob turned into
assembly of 800 to 1500 people, shouting slogans against the
police of pouring petrol and burning the police station. Despite
attempt of the police to control them, at 8.45 p.m. aggressive
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
group forcibly entered D.J.Halli police station with weapons,
stones, sticks, rods and started damaging the police station
building and attacked the police personnel.
(iii) Ultimately, proclamation under Section 144 of Cr.P.C
was imposed and through public announcement requisition was
made to disperse the mob. But the mob did not heed to that.
Ultimately, mob over powering the police proceeded to cellar
and set fire to sixty seven (67) Government vehicles including
both four wheelers and two wheelers parked in the police
station. The police resorted to lathi charge and tear gas
charging. That also did not yield any result. After issuance of
warning to the mob, police were forced to take recourse to firing
to disperse the mob. The mob attempted to grab the weapons of
the police. In police firing several people were injured, two
persons died at the spot and many police personnel also
suffered injuries in the hands of attackers.
11. The allegations against accused No.5/appellant is
that on learning about derogatory facebook post by Naveen, he
reached D.J.Halli police station in conspiracy with accused No.3
and others, mobilized many people at the scene of offence
provoked them and participated in violent acts of damaging the
property in the police station, obstructing the police from
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
performing the duties and pouring petrol on vehicles and setting
them on fire.
Reg. Prima facie case:
12. So far as prima-facie case, appellant does not
dispute occurrence of the incident, but claims that his name
does not figure in the first information report and subsequently
he is falsely implicated. Legal principles in consideration of bail
applications is no more res integra. In this regard, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali's case referred to supra relying on several of its earlier
judgments, at the stage of consideration of bail application has
laid down the following principles:
(i) At the stage of consideration of bail application, the
duty of the Court is to satisfy whether there are reasonable
grounds for believing that accusation against the accused is
prima-facie true;
(ii) For that purpose, the Court has to examine the
materials or the evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer with reference to the accusations;
(iii) Degree of satisfaction of prima-facie case at bail
stage is lighter than such satisfaction at the stage of
framing of charges or trial;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
(iv) It is necessary on the part of the Court to see that
culpability of the accused and involvement of the accused in
commission of organized crime directly or indirectly;
(v) Antecedents and propensities of the accused, nature
and the manner in which the offence is committed; &
(vi) Once the charges are framed, it would be safe to
assume that a very strong suspicion is founded upon the
materials before the Court.
13. The trial Court relied upon the charge sheet
materials and the statements of LWs.25 and 27 who are
protected witnesses. Before this Court, learned Special Public
Prosecutor produced copies of statements of LWs.25, 27, 122
and 124. LWs.25 and 27 are the statements of eyewitnesses
who are head constables of the said police station and LWs.122
and 124 are the statements of other eyewitnesses. They speak
about the incident, presence of appellant along with other
accused. They also speak about appellant along with other
accused instigating other members of the mob, vandalizing
police station, the appellant pouring petrol and burning vehicles
in the police station and obstructing the police from performing
their duties. Considering the same, the trial Court rightly held
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
that name of the appellant not appearing in first information
report is not fatal.
14. It is settled law that first information report is not
encyclopedia and other materials also has to be examined. The
Investigating Officer has collected call detail records of the
appellant to show that he contacted the other accused persons
during the incident and tower location of his mobile phone
indicated his presence at D.J.Halli police station area. As per the
charge sheet records, the Investigating Officer sent the seized
mobile phone of the appellant to FSL to retrieve the data and as
per FSL Report, the appellant found to have received voice
message from accused No.21 exhorting Muslims to gather at
D.J.Halli police station and even to be ready to martyr
themselves. The call detail records revealed that he received 14
calls and made 28 outgoing calls during the relevant time.
Hence, the trial Court was justified in holding that there was
prima-facie material against the appellant.
Reg. Delay in trial:
15. So far as delay in trial, the trial Court in para 22 of
the impugned order has observed that the accused themselves
have delayed the trial by repeatedly filing applications and such
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
applications were filed consecutively by each of the accused,
though common advocate was representing same sets of the
accused. Having regard to that, learned Special Public
Prosecutor was asked to submit the list of applications filed by
the accused and their results.
16. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted the
statement of applications filed by the accused before the trial
Court with their result and the statement of the cases filed by
the accused before this Court which are as follows:
Bail Applications /Interim bail Applications
Sl. Date of Date of
Name and number of Accused Status
No. filing Disposal
1 Mohammed Tousif (A-12) 01.04.2021 Rejected 23.04.2021
2 Syed Afnan (A-25) 25.02.2021 Allowed 25.02.2021
3 Fairoz (A-26) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
4 Sadaf Baig (A-27) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
5 Masood Ahamed (A-28) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
6 Syed Akmal (A-29) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
7 Izaz Pasha (A-30) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
8 Syed Saitu (A-31) 01.03.2021 Allowed 01.03.2021
9 Sohrab Pasha @ Saurab Pasha 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
(A-32)
10 Syed Sameer (A-33) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
11 Saif Sha (A-34) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
12 Syed Nawaz (A-35) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
13 Mohammed Umar Farooq (A-36) 01.07.2021 Allowed 01.07.2021
14 Shabeer @ Allabakash (A-37) 19.03.2021 Allowed 19.03.2021
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
15 Irfan (A-38) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
16 Sawood Khureshi (A-39) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
17 Imran Khan (A-40) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
18 Juberullaha Khan @ Juber (A-41) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
19 Syed Arfath @ Arfta (A-42) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
20 Irfan (A-43) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
21 Roshan Jameer (A-44) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
22 Syed Shabaz (A-45) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
23 Syed Farman (A-46) 23.02.2021 Allowed 23.02.2021
24 Athiq Ahmed (A-47) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
25 Abdul Wajeed (A-48) 23.02.2021 Allowed 23.02.2021
26 Mohammed Arif (A-49) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
27 Javeed (A-50) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
28 Arfath Pasha (A-51) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
29 Fayaz Sheikha Hussain (A-52) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
30 Nizamuddin (A-53) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
31 Sameer (A-55) 23.02.2021 Allowed 23.02.2021
32 Syed Pasha (A-56) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
33 Syed Nawaz (A-57) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
34 Abdul Rehman (A-58) 25.02.2021 Allowed 25.02.2021
35 Tanveer (A-59) 23.02.2021 Allowed 23.02.2021
36 Syed Salman (A-60) 26.02.2021 Allowed 26.02.2021
37 Irshad Ahmed (A-61) 23.02.2021 Allowed 23.02.2021
38 Hussain Sharif (A-62) 26.02.2021 Allowed 26.02.2021
39 Mubarak (A-63) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
40 Mohammed Irfan (A-64) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
41 Mohammed Tanveer Pasha (A-65) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
42 Muheeb Hussain (A-66) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
43 Thufel Ahmed (A-67) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
44 Mohammed Bilal (A-68) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
45 Mohammed Faiz Pasha (A-69) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
46 Mohammed Roshan Inayath (A-70) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
47 Tabrez Hussain (A-71) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
48 Faraz Pasha (A-72) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
49 Syed Zibran (Earlier A-73) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
50 Syed Safeer Ahmed (A-74) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
51 Syed Sameer Ahmed (A-75) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
52 Tauseef Ahmed (A-76) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
53 Altaf Pasha (A-77) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
54 Syed Fayaz Basha (A-78) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
55 Sameer (A-79) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
56 Mohammed Arshad (A-80) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
57 Shaik Altaf (A-81) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
58 Ansar (A-82) 20.03.2021 Allowed 20.03.2021
59 Shaik Ajmal Ansar (A-83) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
60 Ayazuddin (A-84) 01.03.2021 Allowed 01.03.2021
61 Babu Sajjad (A-85) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
62 Syed Dadapeer (A-86) 09.03.2021 Allowed 09.03.2021
63 Syed Javeed (A-87) 22.02.2021 Allowed 22.02.2021
64 Syed Nawaz (A-88) 01.03.2021 Allowed 01.03.2021
65 Mohammed Arbaz (A-89) 12.03.2021 Allowed 12.03.2021
66 Mohammed Ifthekar (A-90) 26.02.2021 Allowed 26.02.2021
67 Syed Fazeel (A-91) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
68 Javed Shariff (A-92) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
69 Syed Mujahid (A-93) 01.03.2021 Allowed 01.03.2021
70 Imran Pasha (A-94) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
71 Mohammed Siddiq (A-95) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
72 Ahmed Ali Baig (A-96) 23.02.2021 Allowed 23.02.2021
73 Syed Altaf (A-97) 06.03.2021 Allowed 06.03.2021
74 Syed Sadik (A-98) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
75 Syed Usman (A-99) 26.02.2021 Allowed 26.02.2021
76 Touseef (A-100) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
77 Abdul Riyaz (A-101) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
78 Mehaboob Pasha (A-102) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
79 Sikander (A-103) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
80 Azgar Ahamed (A-104) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
81 Irfan (A-105) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
82 Salman Khan (A-106) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
83 Karim Pasha (A-107) 24.04.2021 Allowed 24.04.2021
84 Mohammed Liyakath (A-108) 04.03.2021 Allowed 04.03.2021
85 Syed Adnan (A-109) 24.05.2021 Allowed 24.05.2021
86 Shadab (A-110) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
87 Mohammed Abbas (A-111) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
88 Shaik Ameen (A-112) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
89 Syed Imthiyaz Ahmed (A-113) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
90 Mohammed Sawood (A-114) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
91 Mohammed Imran (A-115) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
92 Thousif Khan (A-116) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
93 Mohammed Aftab (A-117) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
94 Arbaz Khan (A-118) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
95 Syed Shabaz (A-119) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
96 Mushthak Ahmed (A-120) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
97 Wasim (A-121) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
98 Mohammed Mudasir (A-122) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
99 Syed Yaseen (A-123) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
100 Shanur @ Shaanur (A-124) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
101 Afroz Alam @ Aproz Alam (A-125) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
102 Sheik Ameen (A-126) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
103 Syed Sikandar (A-127) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
104 Mohammed Azar (A-128) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
105 Firoz Khan (A-129) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
106 Syed Imran (A-130) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
107 Irfan Khan (A-131) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
108 Mukbul @ Maqbool (A-132) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
109 Tousif Pasha (A-133) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
110 Syed Imran @ Mirchi (A-134) 20.02.2021 Allowed 20.02.2021
Atteq Ahmed (A-16)
Shafi Khan (A-17)
111 Shahid Pasha Vali (A-18) 07.12.2021 Rejected 25.03.2022
Tabrez (A-23)
Abdul Baseer (A-24)
112 Suhail Basha (A-6) 30.06.2022 Rejected 20.07.2022
113 Suhail Basha (A-6) 21.09.2022 Withdrawn 10.10.2022
114 Mohammed Arbaj (A-89) 07.12.2022 Allowed 09.12.2022
115 Suhail Basha (A-6) 21.06.2023 Rejected 07.08.2023
116 Mohammed Tousif (A-12) 12.05.2023 Rejected 28.08.2023
117 Wajid Pasha (A-4) 31.10.2023 Allowed 31.10.2023
for 1 day
118 Syed Khalid (A-9) 27.11.2023 Allowed 27.11.2023
for 1 day
119 Farooq (A-15) 12.01.2024 Allowed 23.01.2023
for 1 day
120 Baseer (A-24) 27.10.2022 Rejected 14.11.2024
121 Abdul Wajeed (A-48) 20.01.2024 Allowed 23.01.2024
122 Ateeq Ahmed (A-16) 01.04.2024 Partly 11.04.2024
Allowed
123 Wajid Pasha (A-4) 16.04.2024 Allowed 16.04.2024
for 1 day
124 Imran Khan (A-40) 19.06.2024 Rejected 22.06.2024
Mohammed Arif (A-49)
125 Suhail Basha (A-6) 01.07.2024 Allowed 01.07.2024
for 1 day
126 Ateeq Ahmed (A-16) 15.07.2024 Rejected 30.07.2024
127 Mohammed Arbaj (A-89) 04.11.2024 Allowed 12.11.2024
128 Syed Nawaz (A-35) 05.11.2024 Allowed 12.11.2024
Irfan (A-105)
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
129 Afzal Basha (A-5) 05.03.2025 Rejected 24.03.2025
130 Wajid Pasha (A-4) 02.04.2025 Rejected 03.05.2025
131 Syed Pashavali (A-18) 11.06.2025 Withdrawn 12.06.2025
Mohammed Tousif (A-12) Dismissed
132 Shabaz (A-13) 21.05.2025 as 23.08.2025
Shameel Pasha (A-20)
withdrawn
Tanveer Khan (A-21)
133 Tabrez (A-23) 25.07.2025 Pending
134 Suhail Basha (A-9) 03.09.2025 Pending
Shafi Khan (A-17)
135 Shahid Pasha Vali (A-18) 03.09.2025 Pending
Tabrez (A-23)
Abdul Baseer (A-24)
Application seeking examination of sanction order
Sl. Name and number of Date of
Date of filing Status
No. Accused Disposal
A-1.Muzammil Pasha
A-2.Syed Masood
A-3.Syed Ayaz
A-4.Wajid Pasha KM
A-5.Afzal Basha
A-6.Suhail Basha
A-7.Rakib Sharif
A-8.Mohammed Zaid
A-9.Syed Khalid
1 A-10.Mudasir Ahamed 07.11.2024 Partly Allowed 10.02.2025
A-11.Mubarak @ Dicchi
Mubarak
A-15.Farooq
A-16.Ateeq Ahmed
A-17.Shafi Khan
A-18.Shahid Pasha Vali
A-19.Fairoz Pasha
A-22.Firdous Khan
A-23.Tabrez
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
Application for transfer of cases
Sl. Name and number of Date of
Date of filing Status
No. Accused Disposal
A-25, 27, 30, 32, 33,34,36, 37,
1 38, 46, 55, 56, 59, 60, 80, 88, 21.08.2025 Rejected 24.03.2025
90, 94, 97, 98, 99, 106 & 107
Application under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. (Plead Guilty)
Sl. Name and number of Date of
Date of filing Status
No. Accused Disposal
1 Syed Khalid (A-9) 14.08.2025 Pending
Mohammed Tousif (A-12)
Shabaz (A-13)
Farooq (A-15) 19.08.2025
2 Pending
Shameel Pasha (A-20)
Tanveer Khan (A-21)
Firdous Khan (A-22)
Application for discharge
Sl. Name and number of Date of
Date of filing Status
No. Accused Disposal
1 Fairoz Pash (A-19) 18.04.2022 Dismissed Not Pressed
Petitions and Appeals filed before this Court
Sl. Name and number of Brief History of Last Next
Remarks
No. Case No. Accused case hearing hearing
Rejected on
1 WP.18017/2021 Muzamil Pasha (A1) To quash the FIR 29.09.2021 Dismissed
05.04.2023
To declare
Charge sheet
filed against him
Rejected on
2 WP.9277/2021 Ateeq Ahmed (A-16) is sham and 21.04.2021 Dismissed
05.04.2023
fictitious and stay
operation of
UAPA
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
A-1.Muzammil Pasha
Writ petition filed
A-2.Syed Masood
challenging the
A-3.Syed Ayaz
partly order
A-4.Wajid Pasha KM
passed by NIA
A-5.Afzal Basha
court on
A-6.Suhail Basha
10.02.2025
A-7.Rakib Sharif
wherein the
A-8.Mohammed Zaid
Hon'ble NIA court
A-9.Syed Khalid Dismissed
summoned
3 WP.7017/2025 A-10.Mudasir Ahamed 07.03.2025 Dismissed on
documents
A-11.Mubarak @ Dicchi 26.04.2025
related to
Mubarak
Sanction order
A-15.Farooq
from MHA. Writ
A-16.Ateeq Ahmed
to quash
A-17.Shafi Khan
impugned order
A-18.Shahid Pasha Vali
dated 10.02.2025
A-19.Fairoz Pasha
& IA to stay
A-22.Firdous Khan
proceedings
A-23.Tabrez
Petition filed by
Dismissed
A-5 Afzal Basha
as
challenging bail
4 Crl.P.5188/2025 Afzal Basha (A-5) 03.04.2025 Dismissed withdrawn
rejection order of
on
NIA Court on
30.06.2025
24.03.2025
Appeal filed by A-
12 Mohammed Dismissed
Tousif as
5 Crl.A.1810/2025 Mohammed Tousif (A-12) challenging bail 12.09.2023 Dismissed withdrawn
application on
rejected by NIA 13.08.2025
special Court
Dismissed
6 Crl.P.6141/2020 Syed Khalid (A-8) Grant of bail 05.11.2020 Dismissed on
17.11.2020
Maheeb Hussain, Tufail Challenging bail Dismissed
7 Crl.A.1308/2020 Ahmed, Syed Sufair Ahmed rejection by NIA 14.12.2020 Dismissed on
and Syed Sameer Ahmed Special Court 21.01.2021
Challenging bail Dismissed
8 Crl.A.1314/2020 Fairoz (A-19) rejection by NIA 02.12.2020 Dismissed on
Special Court 27.01.2024
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
Memo filed for
withdrawal of the Dismissed
petition on the as
9 WP.939/2021 Muzamil Pasha (A-1) ground that the 10.02.2021 Dismissed withdrawn
police have on
already filed 26.02.2021
charge sheet
Challenging the
order dated
03.11.2020
passed by the
Syed Masood (A-2)
said Court on an
Syed Ayaz (A-3)
application filed
Syed Shabbir (A-37)
by the
Shabaz (A-45)
respondent-
Syed Pasha (A-56)
National
Abdul Rahman (A-58)
Investigating
Hussain Shariff (A-62)
Agency seeking
Tufail Ahmed (A-67) Allowed on
10 WP.1299/2021 extension of time 19.01.2021 Allowed
Mohammed Roshan Inayath 10.06.2021
for completion of
(A-70)
investigation and
Syed Safeer Ahmed (A-74)
the order dated
Mohammed Arshad (A-80)
05.01.2021
Ayazudduin (A-84)
passed by the
Mohammed Zaid (A-8)
said Court
Syed Mujahid
rejecting the
Syed Altaf (A-97)
applications filed
by the petitioners
under Section
167(2)
Sawood Khureshi (A-39) Challenging the
Imran Khan @ Imran (A-40) order dated
Juberulla Khan @ Juber (A- 03.11.2020
41) passed by the
Syed Arfath @ Arfath (A-42) said Court on an
Syed Shahbaz (A-45) application filed
Mubarak (A-11) by the
Arfath Pasha (A-51) respondent-
Fayaz (A-52) National Allowed on
11 Crl.A.640/2021 30.11.2020 Allowed
Nizamuddin (A-53) Investigating 10.06.2021
Mohammed Shafiq (A-54) Agency seeking
Syed Imtiyaz Ahmed (A-113) extension of time
Moahammed Sawood (A-114) for completion of
Mohammed Irfan (A-64) investigation and
Mohammed Roshan Inayath the order dated
(A-70) 05.01.2021
Syed Zibran (A-73) passed by the
Syed Safeer Ahmed (A-74) said Court
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
Syed Sameer Ahmed (A-75) rejecting the
Arbaaz Khan (A-118) applications filed
Sameer (A-79) by the petitioners
Syed Shabaz (A-119) under Section
Mohammed Arshad (A-80) 167(2)
Musthak Ahmed (A-120)
Mohammed Mudaseer
(A-122)
Sheik Ameen (A-126)
Syed Khalid (A-9)
Mudasir Ahmed (A-10)
Dicchi Mubrak (A-11)
Mohammed Tousif (A-12) Challenging bail Dismissed
12 Crl.A.582/2021 Shabaz M (A-13) rejection by NIA 24.05.2021 Dismissed on
Arif Pasha (A-14) Special Court 15.09.2021
Farooq (A-15)
Shameel Pasha (A-20)
Tanveer Khan (A-21)
Challenging bail Dismissed
13. Crl.A.576/2021 Syed Ikram Uddin (A-14) rejection by NIA 24.05.2021 Dismissed on
Special Court 15.09.2021
Not comply
of office
Challenging bail
objections.
14. Crl.A.1067/2020 Syed Khalid (A-8) rejection by NIA 05.11.2020 Dismissed
Dismissed
Special Court
on
05.02.2021
Wajid Pasha (A-4)
Praying to set
Afzal Basha (A-5)
aside the
Suhail Basha (A-6) Rejected on
15. WP.16167/2021 rejection order by 31.08.2021 Dismissed
Syed Khalid (A-9) 12.12.2021
NIA Special Court
Fairoz Pasha (A-19)
(Default bail)
Firdouse Khan (A-22)
Challenging bail Dismissed
16 Crl.A.1878/2022 Suhail Basha (A-6) rejection by NIA 17.10.2022 Dismissed on
Special Court 14.06.2023
Challenging order
of NIA Court
passed on
27.09.2021,
Allowed on
17 WP.19012/2021 Mujamil Pasha (A-1) rejecting the 21.10.2021 Allowed
06.06.2022
application filed
by the petitioner
under Section
207 of the Cr.PC.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
Ateeq Ahmed (A-16)
Seeking 16, 17,
Shafi Khan (A-17) Dismissed
18, 23 & 24
18 Crl.A.814/2022 Shahid Pasha Vali (A-18) 28.04.2022 Dismissed on
seeking the relief
Tabrez (A-23) 19.07.2022
of bail
Abdul Baseer (A-24)
Allowed on
29.05.2024
Seeking medical
19 Crl.A.793/2024 Ateeq Ahmed (A-16) 10.06.2024 Allowed . Granted
bail for 90 days
60 days
medical bail
Firoz Pasha (A-19 in DJ Halli Challenging bail Dismissed
20 Crl.A.47/2024 case and A-1 in KG Halli rejection by NIA 04.01.2024 Dismissed on
Case) Special Court 15.02.2024
Petition urged
that A-54 is
minor and as Allowed on
21 WPHC. 80/2020 Shafiulla (A-54) 15.10.2020 Allowed
such his 09.02.2021
detention is
illegal.
Filed by A-6
Suhail Basha to
set aside Dismissed
22 Crl.A.1631/2023 Suhail Basha (A-6) impugned order 29.08.2023 Dismissed on
dated 10.02.2023 25.01.2024
IA filed to call
case diary
Syed Nawaz (A-35)
Irfan Pasha (A-43)
Roshan Jameer (A-44)
Syed Farman (A-46)
Athiq Ahmed (A-47)
Mohammed Tanveer
Criminal Petition Dismissed
(A-65)
is filed to quash Dismissed as
Tabrez Hussain (A-71)
23 Crl.P.5626/2022 the charge sheet 16.06.2022 as withdrawn
Thouseef Ahmed (A-76)
filed against withdrawn on
Ansar (A-82)
them 27.03.2025
Syed Dadapeer (A-86)
Mohammed Ifthekar (A-90)
Syed Salman @ Syed Mujahid
(A-93)
Imran Pasha (A-94)
Syed Altaf (A-97)
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
Thouseef (A-100)
Sikander (A-103)
Irfan (A-105)
Salman Khan (A-106)
Karim Pasha @ Lala
(A-107)
Mohammed Liyakath (A-108)
Syed Adnan (A-109)
Revision Petition
challenging the
Allowed on
24 RP.544/2023 Ateeq Ahmed (A-16) order in Writ 15.11.2023 Allowed
27.03.2025
Petition
17. The above statement clearly shows that the accused
themselves are delaying the proceedings, strategically to make
such delay a ground to seek bail. Examination of the earlier
orders of the trial Court on the official website of the concerned
Court shows that since 2021 though the matter was being
posted for hearing regarding framing of charges, by filing one or
the other applications, accused themselves are causing
obstructions in achieving progress in the case. They further
show that as one or the other accused did not appear on the
appointed date, non-bailable warrants and proclamations were
being issued by the trial Court. Applications for bail or discharge
are being filed consecutively by individual accused instead of
filing them collectively, though some set of accused are
represented by common advocate. Other strategy is that they
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
keep changing advocates and changed lawyers seek
adjournments. Therefore delay cannot be attributed either to the
prosecution or the trial Court. The accused being themselves
cause for delay, cannot be permitted to reap the benefit of their
own mistake on ground of delay.
Reg. Parity:
18. Further, there is no dispute that similarly situated
accused i.e. accused No.6 approached this Court in
Crl.A.No.1631/2023 challenging rejection of his bail application.
The same on hearing came to be dismissed by this Court on
25.01.2024. The said order has attained finality.
19. So far as the contention that some other accused
have been granted bail, the trial Court has observed that those
accused are not facing the allegations of commission of crime
under UAP Act. Nothing is placed on record to show that the
accused who were granted bail were also facing the charges
under the provisions of UAP Act. So far as medical ground of the
mother of the appellant, copy of the ration card produced by the
appellant shows that she is living with her husband i.e. father of
the appellant and five other siblings of the appellant. Thus there
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
is no merit in the contention that the mother is solely dependant
on him.
Reg. Citations:
20. Perusal of all the judgments relied on by learned
Counsel for the appellant shows that, in those cases bail was
granted either on the ground of delay in trial or medical grounds
of the accused. In the present case, appellant does not plead
any of his medical ground. So far as the proposition laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that bar of Section 43D(5) of UAP
Act does not oust the ability of the Constitutional Courts to grant
bail on the ground of violation of Part III of the Constitution,
there cannot be any dispute. However, since the facts of the
present case show that delay was on the part of the accused
themselves, the said judgments relied on by learned Counsel for
the appellant cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the
case on hand.
21. Mahatma Gandhi famously stated, "The true source
of rights is duty. If we all discharge our duties, right will not be
far to seek". His another related quote is 'Right is duty well
performed". Appellant is seeking bail on the ground that his
fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
is violated. He gets that right when he adheres to his
fundamental duties encapsulated in Article 51A of the
Constitution.
22. For the purpose of this case, following fundamental
duties under Article 51A (c)(e)(i) of the Constitution are relevant
and the same read as follows:
"51A. Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty of
every citizen of India-
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its
ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the
National Anthem;
(b) ...............................................................................
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty,
unity and integrity of India;
(d) ..............................................................................
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood amongst all the people of
India transcending religious, linguistic and
regional or sectional diversities; to renounce
practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) ...............................................................................
(g) ..............................................................................
(h) ..............................................................................
(i) to safeguard public property and to
abjure violence."
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
HC-KAR
23. Since there is prima-facie material to show that the
appellant had indulged in vandalizing the police station,
assaulted the police obstructed them from discharging their
duties, caused them injuries, tried to damage the public
properties, indulged in violence and denting harmony amongst
the people on religious lines in breach of the above referred
fundamental duties and accused themselves have delayed the
proceedings, they cannot seek benefit of Article 21 of the
Constitution. There is no merit in the contention that the
impugned order of the trial Court is unsustainable. Hence the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
