BENGALURU:The 62nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, which rejected the bail petition of Shantinagar Congress MLA N A Haris’ son Mohammed Haris Nalapad, stated in its order that the accused will certainly try to erase evidence, misdirect prosecution witnesses, bring pressure upon the witnesses and investigating officers and cause influence, and thereby a fair and free trial would not be achieved.
Magistrate Parameshwara Prasanna B, in his order, has cited the observations made by the High Court of Karnataka which had denied bail to Nalapad on March 14. The High Court, after seeing the CCTV footage of the brutal attack, had observed that the incident is horrifying and terrifying, and the footage showed horrendous atmosphere created when the incident took place and there is no guarantee that the accused will remain quiet, without tampering with the evidence once they come out of jail.
The order also speaks about footage from three CCTVs provided by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) as evidence along with the chargesheet. The footage shows Nalapad entering the UB City along with 15 men. The second video, a 15-minute clip, shows Nalapad and gang brutally assaulting Vidvat and the third one is Nalapad and his aides threatening Vidvat’s brother Satvik at Mallya Hospital.
As per the charge sheet, there are 15 eye witnesses to the alleged incident that took place at Farzi Café and there are 11 eye witnesses to the alleged incident at Mallya Hospital. The footage also shows that the first slap was given by Nalapad to Vidvat and then his associates started assaulting him. The statements of the witnesses are supported with electronic and scientific evidence. The footage details shows that Nalapad slapped Vidvat at least five times, all the time pointing to his feet and asking him to kiss it.
Nalapad’s counsel had argued that accused no. 7, Abhilash, was already granted bail by the High Court and hence, even on the ground of parity, his client is also entitled for bail. To this argument, the court observed that it is settled law that the principle of parity can be applied only when the petitioner and the co-accused stands on the same footing. But in this instance, the overt-act alleged against the petitioner and co-accused Abhilash are different and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
Citing the HC observation and the details of the chargesheet, the judge observed, “In the factual matrix of this case, I am of the considered opinion that, there is prima facie and reasonable ground at this stage, for believing that the petitioner (Nalapad) and other co-accused have committed the alleged offences. By considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, the character, behaviour and means, standing of the petitioner, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail."
“In case of the grant of the bail, the petitioner, by using his power and position, will certainly try to erase evidence, misdirect prosecution witnesses, bring pressure upon the witnesses and investigating officers and cause influence. A fair and free trial could not be achieved if the petitioner is let out on bail. Moreover, in case of grant of bail, the petitioner may abscond or he may commit similar kind of offence. Considering the gravity and seriousness of offences and the observations made by the High Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail,” the order stated.