2020 Bengaluru Riots: "Bail is rule" cannot be chanted like mantra in every bail plea, says Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently refused bail to an accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case, while observing that legal norms such as "bail is the rule" cannot be chanted like a mantra or a slogan in every bail petition without considering the context of the case [Imran Ahmed vs National Investigation Agency].The bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Pradeep Singh Yerur noted that all norms in a legal system, including the norm that 'bail is the rule and jail, the exception', are relative and subject to change..The Court recounted that the lenient norm of jail being the exception was evolved decades ago in a case that involved offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Since then, much has changed and we are living in different times where every daily newspaper reports a terrorist act, the Court added."Much water has flowed under the bridges and we are living in different times; every daily newspaper will have some report or photograph about the terrorist acts," the Court said.In this backdrop, the Court proceeded to remark that,"Almost all the norms in a legal system, be it civil or criminal, are relative; they are bound to the Society’s Calendar. With ceaseless run of Time, these norms undergo change in their texture & colour for retaining their relevance as a living law of the people ... Norms of the kind cannot be chanted like mantra or slogans, in every bail petition out of the contextual circumstance.".The accused, through advocate Mohammed Tahir, argued that the Court should consider the sanctity of basic human rights and the doctrine of innocence of the accused until the contrary is proved. He had also cited Justice VR Krishna Iyer's dictum, 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception'..On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), opposed the bail application contending that the alleged offences were grave. He said that an attack on a police station and police personnel was nothing short of an attack on the sovereignty of the country.He argued that the NIA had thoroughly investigated the case and that the material produced on record prima facie showed the involvement of the accused in grave offences.The accused was an integral part of a terrorist gang, he stated. Therefore, allowing the accused to exit prison would lead to the public losing faith in the criminal justice system, the Court was told..The Court noted that the norms governing individual behaviour are typically rooted in the social conditions of the time when they were developed. Their efficacy level and invocability potential do not remain constant, and this cannot be lost sight of by the courts, the bench added..Addressing the contention that the accused was innocent until proven otherwise, the Court noted that this norm was also subject to exceptions. It observed that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), via section 43-D(5), incorporates a negative burden clause. "That being the position, we are not sure whether the doctrine of innocence can be readily invoked in the case at hand," the Court said..Further, the Court found merit in the SPP's argument that the Court should not show any indulgence to the accused in serious matters like the instant case, where a chargesheet has been filed by a specialized investigation agency showing the prima facie involvement of the accused and when the trial court and a coordinate bench of the High Court has already declined the grant of bail. It also agreed with the prosecution's argument that in bail matters, the Court has to bear in mind not only the rights of the accused but also the threat to society if offenders were to be released from confinement.The Court further reiterated that the interest of an individual cannot march over the collective interest of the society..Accordingly, the Court took the view that the cause of justice would be served better if the accused were to continue in confinement.However, it added that the case should be expeditiously tried since several accused were in judicial custody as a consequence of their bail application being rejected.As a result, the Court dismissed the bail application, but at the same time, directed that the case be tried in an expedited manner, on a day-to-day basis, if possible..[Read Judgment]