Deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses: Karnataka HC grants bail to anti-CAA protestors jailed in Mangalore

The Karnataka High Court on Monday granted bail to 21 persons in Mangalore jailed for offences allegedly committed during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). [Ashik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka].While doing so, the Court observed that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Mangalore police to cover up excesses committed against anti-CAA protestors..The order passed by Justice John Michael Cunha states,.“…a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police. Overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that the FIRs are registered under section 307 IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.”Karnataka High Court.The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for allegedly obstructing the police and causing destruction to public property, in violation of the prohibitory order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Section 144 order was passed for over 24 hours in Mangalore, in the wake of protests against the CAA..It was alleged that they were part of an unlawful assembly of 1500-2000 Muslim youth who conspired to set fire to a police station and cause destruction to public property.A whole host of charges were levelled against the petitioners, including those under Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 143 (unlawful assembly) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The accused then approached the Karnataka High Court contending that they had been falsely implicated in the alleged offences, without evidence to prove their involvement..At the outset, the Court noted that the police had killed two persons and injured several others during the violence that followed the crackdown on anti-CAA protests in Mangalore..“The police have not registered even a single case on the complaints filed by the injured and relatives of the dead persons and thus the petitioners seek their release on bail.”Karnataka High Court.Before the Court, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) claimed that the petitioners were found holding sticks and glass bottles, which they threw at the police station. They were also accused of burning tyres and obstructing traffic, which was apparently evident from CCTV footage from the scene. There were even attempts to murder police personnel, the SPP claimed.Claiming that the petitioners might indulge in similar activities if released, the SPP opposed the bail pleas. It was further contended that the petitioners were members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), an Islamic organisation. If they were released on bail, there is a likelihood that they would commit grave offences against the State, including sedition, the SPP argued..After hearing the parties, Justice Cunha noted that the in cases involving multiple accused persons, the identity of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. However, in this case,“…a perusal of the case records produced by the learned SPP-I indicate that the identity of the accused involved in the alleged incident appear to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of Muslim community.”.The judge also noted that the very fact that the petitioners had assembled to protest against the CAA and NRC did not amount to “unlawful object” within the meaning of Section 141 IPC..Further, the Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences.“Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in the CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before this Court showing the presence of any one of the petitioners at the spot armed with deadly weapons.”.Going through the material collected by the Investigating Agency, the Court said that the same does not contain any specific evidence as to the presence of any one of the petitioners at the spot. The photographs produced by the SPP show hardly any member was armed with weapons, except one, who was holding a bottle..On the other hand, the Court noted that the photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones on the crowd..After perusing copies of complaints lodged by the dependants of deceased who died due to police firing, the Court noted the failure of the police to register FIRs in these cases. Thus,“In the wake of counter allegations made against the police and in the backdrop of the failure of the police to register the FIRs based on the complaints lodged by the victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication cannot be ruled out.".Having made these observations, the Court held that it would be a travesty to deny bail to the petitioners, given that the investigation appears to be mala fide and partisan..Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioners be released on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties of a like amount. The petitioners are required to appear before court as and when required, and shall not leave the territorial limits of the trial court without its permission. They have also been directed not to allure prosecution witnesses in any manner and not to get involved in a similar offence..Last week, the Karnataka High Court held that the prohibitory order passed under Section 144 CrPC on December 18 in Bangalore was illegal.