HC: ‘Bail a rule’ won’t apply for UAPA cases

Bengaluru: The high court has once again refused bail to Imran Ahmed, a key accused in the August 2020 east Bengaluru violence case, observing that the interest of an individual cannot take precedence over the collective interest of society.The court has also opined that the oft-quoted dictum “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” cannot be strictly applied to the accused in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Ahmed is accused of participating in the burning of vehicles parked outside KG Halli police station during the August 11, 2020 violence. He was denied bail earlier once by the high court.Ahmed, president of the local unit of Social Democratic Party of India, had moved the high court after a special court for NIA (National Investigation Agency) cases rejected his second bail petition in November last year.His counsel submitted that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” is relied upon by accused persons. Opposing this, the prosecution argued that there was no change in circumstances of the case. A division bench headed by Justice Krishna S Dixit said: “Firstly, such a dicta has to remain miles away when the class of offences which the accused is ascribed of arises under a special statute of great significance. Secondly, Parliament in its accumulated wisdom has enacted clauses in UAPA that severely restrict the claim for grant of bail. Thirdly, the statute also enacts a ‘negative burden’ clause, which places the onus on the shoulders of the accused, much in variance with the normal rule ie., the burden of proof lies on the prosecution,” the bench noted in its order.A Facebook post had triggered the violence in August 2020 and an unruly mob had not only attacked a police station but also burnt down the house of the then MLA Akhanda Srinivasamurthy.
Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Don't miss daily games like Crossword, Sudoku, and Mini Crossword.