[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Waseem Ahmed @ Wasim vs National Investigation Agency on 12 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52878-DB
CRL.A No.2103/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH 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.2103/2025 (21(NIA))
BETWEEN:
MR.WASEEM AHMED @ WASIM
S/O MOHAMMAD NASEERULLA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.363, 4TH SQUARE
OPP. TO BBMP PARK, AUSTIN TOWN
VIVEK NAGAR P.S.,
BENGALURU - 560 047
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
HOUSE NO.1209, BLOCK-32,
GROUND FLOOR
BDA LAYOUT, AUSTIN TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 047 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Location: MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
High Court of REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Karnataka BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU
NO.3RD FLOOR, BSNL, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 008 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SACHIN C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
NIA ACT, 2008 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
15.09.2025 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES) CCH-50 BENGALURU
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52878-DB
CRL.A No.2103/2025
HC-KAR
IN SPL.C.NO.181/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY
APPRECIATE THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439(1) READ WITH
439 OF CR.PC FILED BY THE APPELLANT AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.12.2025, 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 rejection of his application for interim bail,
accused No.2 in Spl.Case No.181/2017 on the file of XLIX Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge (Spl.Court for Trial of NIA cases),
Bengaluru CCH No.50 has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant and five others are being tried in
Spl.CC.No.181/2017 for the charges for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34, 120B of IPC and
Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by
respondent/NIA.
3. The charges against the accused are that the
accused were active workers of Popular Front of India and had
conspired to strike terror in the minds of section of people by
killing RSS members in uniform. In execution of such
NC: 2025:KHC:52878-DB
HC-KAR
conspiracy, due to enmity against the victim Rudresh/an RSS
worker, on the instructions of accused Nos.4 and 5, accused
assembled at garage of accused No.4 with two motorcycles and
fixed fake number plates on the said motorcycles with fake
registration numbers and planned to murder Rudresh. On
16.10.2016 at 11 a.m. accused No.3 rode the bike slowly.
When they came close to Rudresh, accused No.2/pillion rider
took out the machete from the bag and chopped the neck of
Rudresh with the same and escaped.
4. The appellant's first bail application was rejected by
the Trial Court on merits. It is submitted that the applications
filed by co-accused were also rejected on merits. The
contention of the respondent is that the appellant had made
attempts to seek bail in Crl.A.No.174/2019, which came to be
rejected on 07.02.2019 and similarly accused Nos.1 and 4 were
also unsuccessful in their appeals before this Court challenging
the rejection of their bail applications. Challenging the
rejection of his bail application by the Trial Court and this
Court, co-accused (accused No.5) had preferred the SLP (Crl)
No.561/2023 which came to be rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:52878-DB
HC-KAR
5. The appellant had filed petition seeking interim bail
on his medical condition. That was rejected by the Trial Court
on 25.01.2019. Crl.A.No.174/2019 filed against the said order
came to be dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2019. Perusal of
the order in Crl.A.No.174/2019 shows that this Court had
summoned the doctor working in Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru,
Chief Medical Officer and Superintendent of Central Prison,
Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru regarding medical services
provided to the appellant. The said order further shows that
though the hospital had arranged for his surgery, he himself
refused to undergo surgery. Such being the facts, he filed
another bail application before the Trial Court seeking interim
bail for 90 days on the ground that his mother is suffering from
serious medical conditions and his presence with her is
necessary. Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned
order has rejected the said application on the ground that his
other family members are taking care of his mother. The said
order is challenged in the above appeal.
6. Even before this Court, the respondent opposed the
appeal by filing counter. To show that the appellant's mother is
solely dependent on him, the appellant/accused was asked to
NC: 2025:KHC:52878-DB
HC-KAR
produce the ration card of his family. However, he did not
produce the same. He has produced only the record of
enumeration card of himself, his wife, mother and his passport.
The ration card would have shown the list of all family
members. As per enumeration list produced by the appellant,
his father, himself, his sister and his mother were living
together. The said enumeration list is dated 23.02.2007.
Presently the appellant's wife and daughter is also living with
his parents. The updated voters' enumeration list is not
produced to show what is the present position and there is no
explanation for non production of up to date records in that
regard.
7. The medical records produced by the appellant
himself show that his mother was taken to hospital with the
complaints of cataract, osteo-arthritis, fatty liver, bulky uterus
etc. The fact of she visiting the hospitals shows that she is
being accompanied by her other family members. Therefore,
the Trial Court was justified in holding that his mother is not
solely depending on him as noted earlier.
8. While considering such bail application of the
accused, the Court has to balance the interests of the victim as
NC: 2025:KHC:52878-DB
HC-KAR
well as the accused. As noted earlier, finding the prima-facie
material regarding the overt acts of the accused against the
victim, the bail applications of the
co-accused were rejected by the trial Court, this Court and in
Special Leave Petition filed by accused No.5, such order is
confirmed. It has to be borne in mind that hacking the victim to
death, the parents, wife and children of the victim have also
been subjected to destitution. They are crying for justice.
9. Appellant is said to be the main assailant. The
observations made in Crl.A.No.174/2019 show that he filed
similar application on his medical ground and later refused to
take medical treatment offered by the doctors concerned.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any error in the
impugned order. Hence the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AKC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
