Karnataka HC quashes plea of 'Motu Doctor', declines to discharge him

Later, investigation was handed over to the National Investigation Agency.
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court (Photo | EPS)
Updated on: 
2 min read

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court confirmed the order passed by the special court, declining to discharge Dr Sabeel Ahmed aka Motu Doctor (40) from the case booked for allegedly planning to kill Hindu leaders and government officials.

Observing that there is no error in the order passed by the special court, a division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice JM Khazi dismissed the petition filed by Dr Sabeel, questioning the special court order dated August 19, 2023.

Initially, the case was registered by Basaveshwara Nagar police under provisions of the IPC, the Indian Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in 2012. Later, investigation was handed over to the National Investigation Agency.

The petitioner, who is accused No 21, contended that he was acquitted of the offences charged against him by the Delhi court. Therefore, he made an application before the special court in Bengaluru, stating that he faced trial in a Delhi court on certain facts and circumstances which are the same in the case at Bengaluru. In view of this, he cannot be tried again on the same set of facts and circumstances in view of Section 300 of CrPC. The special court, however, dismissed the petition for the reasons that the two cases are not the same and they are related to two different incidents.

Confirming this order, the high court said that Section 300(1) of CrPC cannot be attracted at all. The petitioner may have been acquitted by the Delhi court, but that acquittal does not stop trial by a Bengaluru court. In fact, the act gave rise to offences with which the petitioner was charged and tried by the Delhi court, which are not the same offences for which he is being tried by the Bengaluru court. Maybe the acts have similarities, but they are not the same. Some of the witnesses to both trials may be the same, again it is not a ground for invoking Section 300 of CrPC.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Open in App
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com