SYED ABBAS vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2025

IN CRL.A NO.1313/2025:

BETWEEN:

1. SYED ABBAS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O SYED IMTIYAAZ,
NO.5, M.B.S.MANSON,
TH
15 CROSS,
GOVINDAPURA, AC POST,
BENGALURU-560045.

2. HABEEB UR REHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL MAZEED,
TH
R/AT NO.286, 14 CROSS,
GOVINDAPURA, AC POST,
BENGALURU-560045.

3. PEER PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O LATE ABDUL MAZEED,
TH
R/O NO.827/B, 14 CROSS,
NEAR FARIDA SHOE FACTORY,
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
AC POST, BENGALURU-560045.












Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


4. ZIYA UR REHMAN @ ZIYA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED SAB,
TH
R/O NO.14, 4 CROSS,
BYARAPPA LAYOUT,
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
AC POST, BENGALURU-560045.

5. IMRAN AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O ILYAS AHMED,
ST
R/O NO.235, 1 MAIN ROAD,
TH
4 CROSS, VINOBHA NAGAR,
K.G.HALLI, BENGALURU-560045

PRESENT ADDRESS:
TH
NO.28, 7 B CROSS,
KAVERI NAGAR, R T NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560032.

6. SAMIUDDIN S R @ SAMI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAFEEQ S.A,
ST
R/O. NO.14, 1 MAIN ‘B’ CROSS,
KANAKANAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH-560032.

PRESENT ADDRESS:
TH
NO.294, 6 MAIN,
RD
3 BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560043.

7. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O SHAIK MOHIUDDIN,
TH
R/AT NO.436, 6 CROSS,
MASJID E KHAIR,
VINOBHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH,
ARABIC COLLEGE,
BENGALURU-560045.

8. RUBAH WAQAS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

- 3 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


S/O KHALAQ SHARIFF,
TH
R/O NO.26/2, 12 ‘A ‘CROSS,
SONNAPPA BLOCK,
PILLANNA GARDEN,
RD
3 STAGE, K.G HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045.

9. SHABBAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NAWAB KHAN,
R/O. NO.540/589,
ST ST
1 MAIN, 1 CROSS,
SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD,
ND
COFFEE BOARD 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560045.

PRESENT ADDRESS:
RD
NEAR QUBA MASJID, 3 CROSS,
NEAR ANWAR LAYOUT, D.J.HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045.

10. SHAIK AJMAL,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SHAIK RIYAZ,
TH
R/O.245, 5 CROSS, BM LAYOUT,
VENKATESHPURA, K.G.HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045.

PRESENT ADDRESS:
TH
D.NO.62, 12 CROSS,
VINOBHA NAGAR, PILLANNA GARDEN,
K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU-560045.

11. MOHAMMED KALEEM AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR,
PRESENT ADDRESS:
TH
NO.401, 4 FLOOR,
HONEY ENCLAVE,
NEAR PETROL BUNK,
SHAMPURA ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR,
K.G.HALLI, BENGALURU-560045.

- 4 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


12. NAQEEB PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULLA H,
TH
R/O.NO.41, 9 MAIN,
OPP: KEB PILLANNA GARDEN,
RD
3 STAGE, BENGALURU (NSUNMDS)-560045.

PRESENT ADDRESS:
ND TH
D.NO.18, 2 MAIN, 4 CROSS,
EZIKAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU-560045.

13. IMRAN AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
ST
R/AT NO.702, 1 MAIN,
RD
3 CROSS ‘B’ STREET,
VINOBHA NAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
ARABIC COLLEGE,
BENGALURU-560045.

14. MOHAMMED AZHAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED SHAUKAT,
ND
R/AT H.NO.2, 2 MAIN ROAD,
RD
3 CROSS, ANWAR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU NORTH-560045.

PRESENT ADDRSS:
NEAR NARENDRA THEATRE,
HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560045
…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU,
RD
NO.3 FLOOR,
BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560008

- 5 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(1)
OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2025 FRAMING CHARGES
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 188, 353, 427
AND 435 R/W 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 16, 18 AND 20 OF UA(P)
ACT, 1967 AND SECTION 2 OF THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION
OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT, 1981 AT
ANNEXURE-A, WHEREIN THE APPELLANTS ARE ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED NO.3-6, 8-13, 19 AND 21-23 RESPECTIVELY
PENDING IN FILES OF HON’BLE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA
CASES), (CCH-50), BENGALURU.


IN CRL.A NO.1180/2025:

BETWEEN:

1. SYED ABBAS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O SYED IMTIYAAZ,
NO.5, MBS MANSON,
TH
15 CROSS,
GOVINDAPURA, AC POST,
BENGALURU-560045.

2. HABEEB UR REHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL MAZEED,
TH
R/AT NO.286, 14 CROSS,
GOVINDAPURA, AC POST,
BENGALURU-560045.

3. PEER PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O LATE ABDUL MAZEED,
TH
R/O NO.827/B, 14 CROSS,

- 6 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


NEAR FARIDA SHOE FACTORY,
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
AC POST, BENGALURU-560045.

4. ZIYA UR REHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED SAB,
TH
R/O NO. 14, 4 CROSS,
BYARAPPA LAYOUT,
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
AC POST, BENGALURU-560045.

5. IMRAN AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O ILYAS AHMED,
TH
R/AT 28, 7 ‘B’ CROSS,
KAVERI NAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560032.

6. SAMIUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAFEEQ S.A.,
TH
R/AT NO.294, 6 MAIN,
RD
3 BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560043.

7. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O SHAIK MOHIUDDIN,
TH
R/AT NO.436, 6 CROSS,
MASJID E KHAIR,
VINOBHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH,
ARABIC COLLEGE,
BENGALURU-560045.

8. RABAH WAQAS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O KHALAQ SHARIFF,
TH
R/O NO.26/2, 12 'A' CROSS,
SONNAPPA BLOCK, PILLANNA GARDEN,
RD
3 STAGE, K.G. HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045.

- 7 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


9. SHABBAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NAWAB KHAN,
R/AT NEAR QUBA MASJID,
RD
3 CROSS, NEAR ANWAR LAYOUT,
D.J.HALLI, BENGALURU-560045.

10. SHAIK AJMAL,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SHAIK RIYAZ,
TH
R/AT D.NO.62, 12 CROSS,
VINOBHA NAGAR,
PILLANNA GARDEN, K.G.HALLI,
BENGALURU -560045.

11. MOHAMMED KALEEM AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR,
PRESENT ADDRESS:
TH
NO.401, 4 FLOOR,
HONEY ENCLAVE,
NEAR PETROL BUNK,
SHAMPURA ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, KG HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045.

12. NAQEEB PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULLA H.,
R/AT D.NO.18,
ND TH
2 MAIN, 4 CROSS,
EZIKAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU-560045.

13. IMRAN AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
ST
R/AT NO.702, 1 MAIN,
RD
3 CROSS, 'B' STREET,
VINOBHA NAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
ARABIC COLLEGE,
BENGALURU-560045.

- 8 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


14. MOHAMMED AZHAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED SHAUKAT.
R/AT NEAR NARENDRA THEATRE,
HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560045.

15. KAREEM @ SADAM,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O BASHEER AHAMED,
ND
R/AT NO.7, 2 CROSS,
KARUMARIYAMMA NAGAR,
VENKATESHPURAM,
BENGALURU-560045.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU,
RD
3 FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560008
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(1)
OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT 2008, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2024 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND APPRECIATE THE DISCHARGE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT SAME AT ANNEXURE-B, CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE
THE ACCUSED/APPELLANTS FROM SECTIONS 16, 18 AND 20
OF THE UAPA ACT i.e. SCHEDULE OFFENCES, IN SPL.C
NO.141/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE SECTIONS
120B, 143, 145, 147, 188, 353 AND 427 R/W 34 AND 149 OF
IPC, SECTIONS 16, 18 AND 20 OF UA(P) ACT, 1967, AND
SECTION 2 OF THE PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND

- 9 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT, 1981, WHEREIN THE APPELLANTS
ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO 3-6, 8-13, 19 AND 21-24
RESPECTIVELY PENDING IN FILES OF HONBLE XLIX ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE
TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50), BENGALURU.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.08.2026, THIS DAY , THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)



Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Special counsel appearing for the respondent in both
the cases.
2. These two appeals are filed challenging the framing
of charge and rejection of discharge application, respectively.
In Crl.A.No.1313/2025, the appellants have sought the
following prayers:
“(a) Call for the records of the Trial Court in
Spl.C.No.141/2021, pending on file of Hon’ble
XLIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases,
(CCH-50), Bengaluru.

- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


(b) To set aside the order dated 21.05.2025
framing charges under Sections 143, 144,
145, 147, 148, 188, 353, 427 and 435 read
with 149 of IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of
UA(P) Act, 1967, and Section 2 of the
Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss
of Property Act, 1981, at Annexure-A, wherein
the appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.3-
6, 8-13, 19 and 21-23 respectively pending on
file of Hon’ble XLIX Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for the trial of
NIA Cases), (CCH-50), Bengaluru, in the
interest of justice and equity.
(c) Pass such other or further orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. In Crl.A.No.1180/2025, the appellants have sought
the following prayers:
“To set aside the impugned order dated
05.08.2024 at Annexure-A, and appreciate the
discharge application filed by the appellants before
the Trial Court same at Annexure-B, consequently
discharge the accused/appellants from Sections 16,
18 and 20 of the UAPA Act i.e., schedule offences, in
Spl.C.No.141/2021 for the offences punishable
Sections 120B, 143, 145, 147, 188, 353 and 427
read with 34 and 149 of IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 20

- 11 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


of UA(P) Act, 1967, and Section 2 of the Prevention
of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981,
wherein the appellants are arrayed as accused
Nos.3-6, 8-13, 19 and 21-24 respectively pending on
file of Hon’ble XLIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, (Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50), Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and
equity.”


4. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the very initiation of criminal
proceedings against the appellants is bad in law. The learned
counsel though contend that prayer is sought for discharge of
the accused for all the offences, including IPC and also Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UA(P) Act’ for short), he has
restricted his prayer to discharge the appellants only in respect
of offences under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act in
respect of Special Case No.141/2021, in connection with the
incident of K.G.Halli Police Station. The learned counsel
brought to the notice of this Court, a separate accusation made
in respect of the accused persons in the charge-sheet. The
learned counsel would mainly contend that the ingredients of
UA(P) Act offences are not made out. The learned counsel also
vehemently contend that case is filed against the accused

- 12 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


persons in respect of burning of two wheelers and Innova car.
The case in respect of this incident was at the first instance
registered by State Police and recorded the statement of
witnesses and subsequently, the matter was entrusted to
National Investigating Agency (‘NIA’ for short) and NIA also
conducted the investigation. It is also the contention that in
connection with burning of bikes, four separate FIRs are
registered by the State Police and the accused involved in
burning of the vehicles in the said case are not the same
accused as the ones indicated by NIA in the present case. The
learned counsel also contend that even though the prosecution
relies upon the video, the accused are not visible in the video
footage doing illegal acts. The learned counsel also contend
that the statements recorded by CCB and State Police are not
made part of the charge-sheet by NIA. The learned counsel
submits that the sanction has been issued without perusing the
relevant documents and mechanically issued the same. It is
also contended that subsequent statement of witnesses have
contradictions. It is also contended that sanction is full of
anomalies.

5. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial
Court committed an error in framing the charge relying upon

- 13 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


the fabricated statements. The accused persons were divided
into four categories. The learned counsel also brought to the
notice of this Court placing on record voluminous documents
with regard to the contradictions found in the statement made
when the statement was recorded by the State and also the
NIA. The learned counsel would also vehemently contend that
the State Police identifies different persons and NIA Police
identifies different persons. The State Police recorded
statement in the month of August and those statements were
not against these accused persons. The learned counsel also
contend that the names of accused Nos.3 to 7 surfaces in many
cases and the allegation is instigation. The State Police, who
have registered the case i.e., FIRs have not mentioned the
names of accused Nos.3 to 6. The learned counsel contend
that the State has filed the charge-sheet within 90 days and
charge-sheet filed thereafter by the NIA is only in December.
Hence, it is very clear that the NIA while invoking UA(P)A
offences, cleverly included the statements of some of the
persons, even though there was no any material against the
accused persons. The learned counsel would contend that
under Section 173(5) of Cr.P.C., even not produced the
statements and there is no statement of witnesses regarding

- 14 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


ablazing of Innova car and only with an intention to implicate
these accused persons, further statements were recorded. In
the earlier statements, there is no whisper about involvement
of these accused persons in ablazing the Innova car. The
learned counsel would contend that during the course of
investigation, different persons’ names appeared. The
prosecution relies upon so many witnesses’ statements and
those witnesses also gave the names of different persons at
different stages. The same was recorded and implicated the
accused persons invoking the UA(P) Act. The learned counsel
also contend that in the remand application also, there is no
whisper about the involvement of these accused persons in the
said incident.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel appearing
for the respondent in his arguments would vehemently contend
that detailed statement of objection is filed and that the
appellants are not entitled for any relief in respect of framing of
charge as well as discharge. The learned counsel would
contend that the Trial Court in detail taken note of the material
while framing the charge and also in rejecting the application
for discharge and considered the scope of discharge application
relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court. The learned

- 15 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Section 15 of
UA(P) Act. The learned counsel would contend that the
accused persons have involved in making an attack on the
police station and burnt both private and public vehicles and
also caused destruction of public properties. The learned
counsel would vehemently contend that Section 15(1)(a)(i) and
(ii) of UA(P) Act attracts considering the ingredients of offences
invoked against the accused persons and hence, the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellants that UA(P) Act cannot
be invoked against the accused persons, cannot be accepted
and there is no any force in such argument. The ingredients of
the offence are very clear with regard to invoking the offence
under UA(P) Act. The learned counsel contend that the Trial
Court has taken note of the provisions of Section 43D of UA(P)
Act while rejecting the bail application. But, subsequently bail
was granted only on the ground that there was a delay.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent relies upon
the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.18985/2025 dated 28.01.2026,
wherein a direction was given to the Trial Court to prioritize the
examination of the five protected witnesses and to do the
needful within a time bound period of four weeks in respect of

- 16 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


the case of D.J. Halli Police Station. The learned counsel
referring this order would contend that the facts of the said
case and the facts of the case on hand are similar and when
such direction was given by the Apex Court to go ahead with
the trial and give prioritization, the same principle is also
applicable to the case on hand. The learned counsel would
contend that the other ground urged before the Court with
regard to the sanction is concerned and whether the sanction is
valid or not, is to be considered at the time of trial and whether
materials are scrutinized or not while giving the sanction also to
be considered at the time of merits. The learned counsel also
relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in
W.P.No.6515/2025 and other connected petitions dated
26.04.2025 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph
No.11, wherein it is held that if the Court takes the cognizance
of an offence without sanction order, the accused can plead for
his discharge on the ground that taking cognizance in the
absence of sanction is not permitted. If the sanction order is
issued by an incompetent authority, accused gets a right to
seek discharge. If the sanction order is issued by a competent
authority, but the accused wants to question the sanction order
on the ground that there is no application of mind by the

- 17 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


authority or that all the materials were not placed before him,
the appropriate stage is trial. The learned counsel also brought
to the notice of this Court the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
i.e., only upon consideration of records, the matter to be
considered if any materials during the trial. The learned
counsel would contend that investigation is conducted and
charge-sheet is filed and allegations made in the charge-sheet
is specifically in respect of these accused persons. The Trial
Court taken note of the same and framed the charge and it is
not a case for discharge when the material available on record
indicates that it requires a trial.
8. In reply to this argument, the learned counsel for
the appellants would vehemently contend that bail material is
different from framing of charge. With regard to the discharge
is concerned, whether there is a prima facie material to proceed
against the accused, is to be considered at the time of framing
of charge. When such material is not available, the question of
framing of charge and also rejection of discharge application
does not arise.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal

- 18 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


of the documents, which have been produced before this Court
along with the appeals as well as during the course of
argument, the points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
framing of charge against the accused for the
offences of IPC as well as special enactment of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984, as well as UA(P)A offences?


(ii) Whether the appellants have made out a
ground to discharge them by allowing the
application filed for discharge?


(iii) What order?


Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
10. Having considered the material on record,
Crl.A.No.1313/2025 is filed praying this Court to set aside the
order of framing of charge dated 21.05.2025 in respect of
Special Case No.141/2021 and discharge the appellants under
Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act and IPC offences and also
under the special enactment. Crl.A.No.1180/2025 is filed by
the appellants to set aside the order dated 05.08.2024 of
framing of charge and prayer is sought to discharge the
appellants for both IPC offences and UA(P)A offences. This

- 19 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


Court already made it clear that the ingredients of the offences
are almost similar in both the appeals. The Trial Court while
framing the charge taken note of the accusations made against
each of the accused persons, particularly with regard to forming
of an unlawful assembly. The Trial Court also taken note of the
video/audio clip of BTV news channel of 21.07.2020 in Kannada
language relating to alleged remarks by Sri Murugesh Nirani,
MLA, which was insulting to the Hindu religious sentiments on
the Facebook account of accused No.1 with an intention to
promote enmity and disharmony or feelings of enmity between
different religions groups while invoking Section 153A of IPC.
The Trial Court also taken note of derogatory post made by one
Naveen on his Facebook account, which is insulting Prophet
Muhammed and accused persons connived with each other to
attack the KG Halli Police Station in respect of the offence of
conspiracy. The Trial Court also taken note of the allegations
made in the charge-sheet with regard to attack on police
station with deadly weapons such as stones, wooden clubs and
iron rods, committing rioting in furtherance of unlawful
assembly and common object and unlawful assembly in
disobedience of the order of curfew issued under Section 144 of
Cr.P.C. The Trial Court also taken note of the allegations made

- 20 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


with regard to preventing of police personnel, who are in
discharge of their official duty as public servants and causing of
mischief and damaging the vehicles both two wheelers as well
as Innova car and also causing destruction of the property of
private and public personnel. When such charges are made in
the charge-sheet and materials are collected, whether the
material collected is created for the purpose of implication of
the accused persons and also the contradictions which were
found in the statements recorded by the State Police as well as
NIA, to be urged at the time of trial and not at the time of
framing of charge.
11. The Trial Court also considered the discharge
application, particularly the grounds which have been urged in
the application, as well as statement of objections filed by the
prosecution. The Trial Court while considering the grounds
urged in the application and statement of objections, before
analyzing the material on record, taken note of the principles
laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA v. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL AND
ANOTHER reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 with regard to the
scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and even extracted Section 227
of Cr.P.C. for consideration of the same in paragraph No.12.

- 21 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


The Trial Court in paragraph No.13 taken note of the material
on record and so also taken note of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of SAJJAN KUMAR v. CBI reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 368, wherein also a detailed discussion was
made with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections
227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court also taken note of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
RAJASTHAN v. ASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP reported in
(2021) 2 Crimes (SC) 101, extracting paragraph Nos.9.1,
9.2, 10 and 11 of the said judgment. The Trial Court having
considered the principles laid down in the said judgments and
also the grounds which have been urged in the application and
statement of objections, in detail discussed the material on
record and also taken note of earlier rejection of bail
applications filed by the respective accused persons.
12. It is important to note that the main allegation of
the prosecution is that the accused persons held conspiracy and
thereafter they reached the K.G.Halli Police Station in
furtherance of the conspiracy, shouted slogans, burnt vehicles
by pouring petrol on it, damaged the public properties and they
were involved in commission of terrorist act with an intention to
strike terror in the mind of the people. It is also important to

- 22 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


note that L.W.1 Ajay Sarathi has stated before the
Investigating Officer that accused No.1 was present in the mob
when the incident was taken place. The Trial Court also taken
note of the fact that when the persons came and lodged the
complaint against one Naveen, subsequently number of
persons gathered. The Trial Court also taken note of the
statement of L.W.23 Nagaraju, who made the statement before
the Investigating Officer so also the statement of witnesses LW
30 to 35. The Trial Court in paragraph No.37 taken note of the
persons who have indulged in setting ablaze on Innova car near
K.G. Halli Police Station by pouring petrol on it during riots on
11.08.2020 and also setting fire on the two wheelers and
attack made on the police station and each accused’s role
played is taken note of while rejecting the discharge
application. In paragraph No.38 taken note of that the
Investigating Officer has also collected the CDRs of mobile
numbers of the accused persons, which clearly indicate that the
accused persons were in contact with other accused persons
during the incident and they were present at the place of
incident. It is also important to note that with regard to
conspiracy is concerned, the Court cannot expect the direct
evidence and the same has to be considered during the course

- 23 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


of trial whether there was a circumstance to point out the
proving of conspiracy. Without conducting the trial, the same
cannot be done.
13. The Trial Court also taken note of the grounds of
application when the argument was made that there are
contradictions in the statements made by the witnesses and so
also with regard to the identity of the accused persons. Though
it is contended that State Police as well as the NIA identified
different persons at different stages and the same is a matter
of trial and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court in
paragraph No.40. In paragraph No.43, the Trial Court taken
note of with regard to the allegations made in Crime
Nos.228/2020, 232/2020, 241/2020 and 235/2020. When
such material is collected by the Investigating Officer, if there is
any contra material as contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants, at the time of framing of charge and rejection of
discharge application, the Trial Court cannot conduct a mini
trial. The Trial Court in paragraph No.48 taken note of that
some of the accused persons came to K.G. Halli Police Station
at around 8.55 p.m. on 11.08.2020 and lodged a first
information statement against one Naveen. Thereafter, the
mob started gathering in front of K.G.Halli Police Station and

- 24 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


alleged incident occurred after 11.00 p.m. Though it is
contended that videos are produced before the Court, the faces
of all the persons who were in the mob is not properly visible
and the same is also to be taken note of at the time of marking
of the same before the Court and effective cross-examination
can be done during the course of trial. When such being the
case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the ingredients of offence of UA(P) Act are not
made out, cannot be accepted.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly
brought to the notice of this Court the ingredients of Section
15(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of UA(P) Act. If any fear and terror
atmosphere is created at the time of the incident, whether such
ingredients are complied or not, is only to be considered at the
time of considering the matter on merits and the Trial Court
cannot conduct mini trial at the stage of framing of charge and
at the time of considering the discharge application. Hence, we
do not find any grounds to entertain these appeals to set aside
the order dated 21.05.2025 framing charges as well as the
order dated 05.08.2024 and no ground is made out to allow the
discharge application by setting aside the order of the Trial
Court. The Trial Court considering the material on record,

- 25 -
CRL.A No. 1313 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1180 of 2025


rightly framed the charge and also rightly rejected the
discharge application in rightly coming to the conclusion that all
these materials are to be considered during the course of trial.
Hence, we answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) in the negative.
Point No.(iii):
15. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following order:
ORDER
Both the appeals are dismissed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE


MD