Praveen Nettaru murder: Karnataka High Court denies bail to 3 from SDPI

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the bail pleas of three men arrested in connection with the murder of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker Praveen Nettaru last year [Ismail Shafi K v. State By National Investigation Agency]. .A Bench of Justices HB Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti found sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused to show their active involvement in the crime. It ruled,“The alleged provocative speeches of the determination of the accused and their Organisation to eliminate prominent Hindu leaders at random in retaliation of killing of one Sri. Masood could only be with an intent to threaten and strike terror in one particular section of the people in India. As such, it would be a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAP [Unlawful Activities (Prevention)] Act.".The three accused Ismail Shafi K, K Mahammad Iqbal and Shaheed M, who are members of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), had been denied bail by the Special NIA Court in April this year.Two of the three accused had contended that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had falsely alleged that they had given provocative speeches at the funeral of a teenager Masood and threatened to avenge his killing by killing prominent Hindu community leaders. The other appellant is accused of preparing a sketch of the plan to attack the victim..The Court said that even though the three accused are not shown to have been physically present at the time of the attack on Nettaru, no overt act is required to be done to constitute conspiracy.It noted that all three are said to have attended a conspiracy meeting and discussed the plan of killing Nettaru. The accusation of giving provocative speeches is shown to be corroborated by the statements of four protected witnesses, the Court noted. Further, the investigating officer was also said to have collected call details between mobile phones of the accused to show conspiracy..The Court further observed that it is not necessary that a terrorist act has to be committed by an organization as Section 15, which defines 'terrorist act,' uses the word "whoever" and it refers to "any person" committing the act.“The conspiracy in which the participation of the present appellants is prima facie found to be true, is an act of advocating, abetting and facilitating the commission of a terrorist act and an act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act which is punishable under Section 18 of the UAP Act,” the judgment said..Moreover, the materials placed before the Court “prima facie” showed that each of the accused was shown to have played a “definite, active and significant role in the commission” of the murder.Concluding that the materials placed by the prosecution leads us to an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the three accused are prima facie true, the Court rejected the bail appeals..Advocate Mohammed Tahir represented the appellants.Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar P represented the National Investigation Agency..[Read Judgment]