2020 Bangalore riots: Karnataka High Court rejects plea by accused seeking quashing of cognisance taken by NIA court

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash an order of a National Investigation Agency (NIA) special court taking cognisance of offences by one of the accused in the 2020 Bangalore riots case. [Mohammed Shariff v. National Investigating Agency].Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that as per the investigation, it was established that the accused coordinated with the movements and activities of the other accused, and was in constant touch with people who attacked police personnel..Therefore, the Court held that there was prima facie material disclosing the commission of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).."The investigation established the petitioner coordinating with the movements and activities of the other accused persons. He was in constant touch and was meeting the participants who conspired and decided to carry out the violent attack on the police personnel. Therefore, there is prima facie material in the charge sheet against the petitioner for alleging the offences under the Act," the Court said..The Court was hearing a writ petition by the accused, Mohammed Shariff, seeking quashing of the order of the special court on the ground that it bore no application of mind. .Advocate Mohammed Tahir for the petitioner argued that no allegations against him touched upon offences under UAPA. At best, he could be said to be accused of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Hence, he contended that conducting trial by the NIA court was contrary to law, as the court is only concerned with offences under Section 15 (terrorist act) of the UAPA..On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar for the NIA argued that the offences alleged clearly came under the purview of Section 15 UAPA and that the special court has jurisdiction to try offences both under the IPC and UAPA. Therefore, he contended that the special court had applied its mind and that it was clear from the chargesheet. .The Court noted that it was alleged that the petitioner and other accused used inflammable devices or explosives to burn vehicles and destroy public property, all with an intent to disturb the security of the nation. Therefore, it held that the ingredients of Section 15 of UAPA were prima facie met and that the submission that the special court could not hold trial need not be considered. The Court also found the offence under Section 18 (conspiracy) of UAPA was made out against the accused..Counsel for the petitioner also argued that despite two years having passed, there was no progress in the trial and sought a direction for conclusion of trial within a time frame.However, the Court determined that given the large number of accused facing trial, it could not accept the submission given the peculiar facts of the case..[Read Order]