Kareeem @ Sadam Vs State by

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF NIA ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF XLIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES AT BENGALURU DATED 17.12.2024 IN RC-35/2020/NIA/DLI AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.229/2020 PERTAINING TO K.G.HALLI P.S NOW INVESTIGATED BY NIA AS SPL.C.NO.1471/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,143,145,147,188,353,427 R/W 34, 149 OF IPC

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:23303-DB CRL.A No.238/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND SEC.16,18,20 OF UA(P) ACT 1967 AND SEC.2 OF THE PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶22

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶25

This appeal is preferred by accused No.24 in Special Case No.141/2021 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,[Special Court for the trial of NIA cases] (CCH50) Bengaluru challenging order of rejection of his successive bail application. The appellant along with 137 other accused is being tried in the said case.

¶26

Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of IPC. So far as accused Nos.1 to 25, in addition to the aforesaid IPC, they are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act’) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23303-DB CRL.A No.238/2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶30

That on 11.08.2020 at 8.45 p.m. accused who were

¶31

initially about 25 to 30 in numbers gathered in-front of K.G Halli police station and began shouting slogans demanding the arrest of one P.Naveen, a nephew of Sri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy, MLA of Pulakeshi Nagar Constituency, Bengaluru alleging posting of a derogatory comment against Prophet Mohammed on his facebook account. By 8:50 p.m. number swollen and all accused led by accused No.14 entered the premises of K.G Halli Police Station demanding registration of FIR against P.Naveen and others. By that time on the same allegations, FIR was already registered in Cr.No.195/2020 of D.J Halli Police station, Bengaluru. Despite informing that, accused were not convinced. Therefore, K.G Halli police accepted complaint and registered case in NCR No.384/2020. Despite that, accused and others protesters instigated by prime accused become unruly. Police to imposed curfew within the jurisdiction of both K.G Halli and D.J Halli police station to bring the situation under control. However, accused insisting to handover P.Naveen to their custody, started vandalizing the police station, forcing police to resort to lathi charge. Mob

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23303-DB CRL.A No.238/2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

attempted to snatch weapons from the police personal and kill them, which lead to an order to open fire resulting death of one person. Rioters damaged 12 government and private vehicles, inflicted injuries on the police personal.

¶35

At the relevant time and place, accused No.19 was strong supporter and mentor of SDPI. Accused No.20 was active member of SDPI and accused Nos.21 and 22 were active supporters of SDPI. Accused No.24 had joined the said gang near K.G Halli Police Station in conducting conspiracy meeting, then the said gang reached K.G Halli police station. It is alleged that appellant along with other accused set ablaze Innova Car parked near K.G Halli Police Station and poured petrol on the same.

¶36

The appellant’s first application for grant of bail was rejected by the trial Court on 23.04.2021. He challenged the said order before this Court in Crl.A.No.585/2021. On hearing the parties, the said appeal came to be dismissed on merits. Subsequently, he filed the present application before the trial Court for bail which is rejected by the impugned order.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23303-DB CRL.A No.238/2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Since the earlier bail application was rejected by the

¶40

trial court and confirmed by this Court on considering the merits, though much is argued on the merits of the case, it is not open to re-agitate on the merits of the case. The application shall be considered only on the basis of changed circumstances, if any. The only changed circumstances urged by the Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is arrested on 21.12.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody and trial has not yet commenced.

¶41

It is further contended that there are 254 chargesheet witnesses and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future. The said contention is opposed by the other side on the ground that the accused themselves have stalled framing of the charges and the trial by filing innumerable applications either for bail or for discharge and all such applications are rejected by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court. Some of the co-accused of the appellant challenged the order of this Court rejecting bail applications before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has also confirmed the order of this Court and trial Court. That

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23303-DB CRL.A No.238/2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

goes to show that the matters are delayed by the accused themselves.

¶45

Admittedly, there are 138 accused in the case. Out of them, 25 are charged for UAP offences. Appellant/accused have not disputed filing of earlier bail application. It is also not disputed that co-accused went on bail applications and applications for discharge which were rejected. The appellant who is seeking discretionary relief of grant of bail for the reasons best known to him has suppressed rejection of his earlier bail application and confirmation of the same by this Court. It is also material to note that the accused have adopted strategy of filing individual applications for bail or discharge,

¶46

though they were represented by set of lawyers. That occupies the time of court which prevents further material stages being reached.

¶47

Para 24 of the statement of objection shows that in all the bail applications initiated by accused before this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court they were unsuccessful. Considering the said factors, the trial Court was justified imputing the delay, if any to the accused themselves. Despite

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:23303-DB CRL.A No.238/2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

such obstacles, it is submitted that now the charges are framed against accused/appellant on 21.05.2025.

¶52

Accused are facing charges of questioning sovereignty of the State by vandalizing police station duly established by the State and obstructing public servants on discharging their duties with fanatical ideologies. Under the circumstances, the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for appellant cannot be justifiably applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶53

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶55

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶56

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Kareeem @ Sadam v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kareeem @ Sadam v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh Babu Vs Girish R, IAS

Sri Anas Iqbal Shaikh, @ Annu @ Aristrocrat Boy Vs State by

Smt. H Vimalabai Vs Rajesh Gowda

Master Manjunath Vs Mrs. Vanditha Sharma

Sri H S Venkatesh Murthy Vs Mr Girish I a S

Sri Mahadevaiah B Vs Sri Rajinish Goel