Karnataka High Court
Mr Ziya Ur Rehman @ Ziya vs National Investigation Agency on 29 July, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.767/2024 (21 (NIA))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2024 (21 (NIA))
CRL.A.NO.767/2024:
BETWEEN:
MR. ZIYA UR REHMAN @ ZIYA
S/O MOHAMMED SAB
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, 4TH CROSS
BYRAPPANA LAYOUT
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD
A C POST, BENGALURU-560 045 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX
OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SACHIN C. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
CRL.A.NO.34/2024:
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED MUDASSIR KALEEM
S/O MOHAMMAD KALEEM AHMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-2-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
R/AT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, HANI ENCLAVE
NEAR PETROL PUMP, SHAMPURA ROAD
GANDHI NAGAR, K.G. HALLI
BENGALURU-560 045
PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.742
1ST MAIN, BEHIND K G HALLI POLICE STATION
VINOBHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 045 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SACHIN.C. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
CRL.A.NO.767/2024 AND CRL.A.NO.34/2024 ARE FILED
UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF NIA ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 04.04.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ORDER DATED
05.07.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XLIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPL. COURT FOR
TRIAL OF NIA CASES) BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.141/2021 AND
GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.6 & 20
RESPECTIVELY IN SPL.C.NO.141/2021 UNDER SECTIONS 120B,
143, 145, 147, 188, 353, 427 R/W SECTION 34 AND 149 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 16, 18 AND 20 OF UA(P) ACT, SECTION 2 OF THE
PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
-3-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
These appeals are preferred by accused Nos.6 and 20 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) (CCH-50), Bengaluru challenging the orders of
rejection of their bail applications.
2. The particulars of the orders are as follows:
Sl. Criminal Accused Date of Date of
No. appeal Nos. Nos. application order
1 34/2024 20 - 04.2023 05.07.2023
2 767/2024 6 25.03.2024 04.04.2024
3. The appellants and 136 other accused are being
tried in Spl.C.No.141/2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 333, 332, 436, 427 and 149 of
IPC, Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act‘) and Section 4 of
the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984/Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of
Property Act, 1981 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by
NIA in R.C.35/2020/NIA/DLI.
-4-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
4. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) That SDPI in Bengaluru was unhappy with the
decisions of the Central Government on certain matters viz.,
repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, issuance of
CAA/NRC, Supreme Court’s verdict in Babri masjid and Triple
Talak cases. SDPI members actively participated in the
agitation against the Government on those issues. They were
waiting to create communal disharmony and unrest in the
country. Accordingly accused Nos.1, 2, 25 and other SDPI
Bengaluru District leaders hatched criminal conspiracy and
decided to post some derogatory message to insult and
provoke Hindu Gods and Hindu Community through accused
No.1’s facebook account who has thousands of Hindu
followers on facebook. They intentionally selected 11.08.2020
an auspicious day for Hindus i.e., the day of Sri Krishna
Janmashtami to post the message. Meanwhile the SDPI
cadres were well prepared to respond to any situation arising
out of such incident and to execute their plans to commit
violent acts to garner the support of the Muslim community.
(ii) In execution of such conspiracy, accused No.1 on
11.08.2020 posted a video/audio clip containing a derogatory
comment made by one Murugesh Nirani, MLA offending Hindu
deities deliberately tagging the same to P.Naveen, nephew of
-5-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy, MLA of Pulakeshinagar
Constituency so that he responds to the same and they can
indulge in violence. As expected said P.Naveen responded
posting a cartoon picture with comment on Prophet
Mohammed.
(iii) The appellants and other accused held conspiracy
meeting at SDPI Office, Nagawara to commit violent acts by
attacking the police personnel. They also decided to file
maximum number of complaints against P.Naveen in different
police stations at Bengaluru to pressurize the police and the
Government. After such conspiracy meeting, accused No.25
remained at Nagawara Ward to coordinate the activities in
furtherance of the conspiracy. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and other
accused including the SDPI ward members reached
Kadugondanahalli police station (for short ‘K.G.Halli Police
Station’) for filing FIRs, mobilizing SDPI cadres and to attack
the police station and police personnel.
(iv) That on 11.08.2020 at 8.45 p.m. accused who
were initially about 25 to 30 in numbers, gathered in-front of
K.G.Halli Police Station and began shouting slogans
demanding the arrest of P.Naveen. 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
-6-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
FIR against P.Naveen. By that time on the same allegations,
FIR was already registered in Crime No.195/2020 of D.J Halli
Police station, Bengaluru. Despite K.G.Halli police informing
the accused that in view of such FIR, again other complaints
for the same crime cannot be entertained, the mob insisting
to register the case became violent. To manage the situation,
K.G.Halli police accepted complaints and on the basis of the
complaints of accused, registered cases in NCR Nos.384 to
387 of 2020.
(v) Despite that, accused and other protesters
instigated by prime accused became unruly forcing the police
to impose curfew within the jurisdiction of both K.G Halli and
D.J Halli police stations to bring the situation under control.
However, accused insisting to handover P.Naveen to their
custody, started vandalizing the police station, pelted stones
and threw petrol packed in plastic covers and in bottles on the
police personnel, forcing police to resort to lathi charge. Mob
attempted to snatch weapons from the police personnel and
kill them, which led to an order to open fire resulting in death
of one person. Rioters set 12 government and private vehicles
on fire pouring petrol, inflicted injuries on the police personnel
obstructing them from discharging their official duties.
-7-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
(vi) As per the charge sheet records, at the relevant
time, accused Nos.5 and 20 were the active members of SDPI
and accused No.6 was the treasurer of SDPI, Nagawara. The
allegations against accused Nos.5 and 6 were that in
execution of the conspiracy, they mobilized men and material.
It was alleged that accused Nos.3 to 7 and few others burnt
police vehicles pouring petrol and created terror atmosphere
in the area.
(vii) So far as accused No.20, it was alleged that on
11.08.2020 at 21.30 hours, he along with accused Nos.19 to
24 assembled at medical shop of accused No.19 situated at
200 meters distance from K.G.Halli police station, conducted
conspiracy meeting, then they went to K.G.Halli police station
joined accused No.14 and others in indulging in destructive
activities as aforesaid including burning of vehicles. It was
further alleged that during and after rioting, accused No.20
was active on whatsapp group “K.G.halli 45”. Through such
group and other similar social media networks of co-accused,
he mobilized the mob to gather in front of K.G.Halli police
station and hinted the mob about escape route from police
station. It was alleged that the accused captured the
photographs of burning vehicles and circulated the same.
-8-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
(viii) Accused Nos.6 and 20 are charge sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 145, 147, 188,
353 and 427 of IPC read with Sections 34 and 149 of IPC,
Sections 16, 18, 20 of UAP Act and Section 2 of the
Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
5. The earlier bail application of accused No.20 was
rejected by the trial Court on 23.04.2021 on considering the
merits. The said order was confirmed by this Court on
15.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.585/2021 and connected appeals. The
said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.848/2022 on 28.02.2022. Therefore, the
successive application of accused No.20 can succeed only if
there is any changed circumstance. The only changed
circumstance urged by Sri Shankarappa, learned Counsel is
that accused No.20 is in judicial custody since more than 5
years, the trial has not yet commenced and the same is not
likely to be concluded in near future.
6. So far as accused No.6, allegations against
accused Nos.5 and 6 are common. The trial Court by the
impugned order dated 04.04.2024 has rejected the bail
applications of accused Nos.5 and 6 by common order.
Accused No.6 has challenged the said order in
-9-
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
Crl.A.No.767/2024. Accused No.5 challenged the said order
before this Court in Crl.A.No.828/2024. Accused Nos.11, 12
and 13 in the very case had challenged the rejection of their
bail applications in Crl.A.No.827/2024. This Court by common
order dated 30.08.2024 in both those appeals, dismissed
them. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl).No.17214/2024. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court by judgment dated 13.02.2025 has confirmed
the judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by this Court in
Crl.A.No.827/2024 C/w. Crl.A.No.828/2024.
7. Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned Counsel for accused
No.6 vehemently contended that along with the charge sheet,
NIA had not produced the statements of the witnesses
recorded by the State police, there were material
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded by
the State police and NIA regarding presence of accused No.6
at the scene of offence and he setting the vehicles ablaze. He
submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the
same. The delay in trial is another ground urged by him. So
far as confirmation of orders by this Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is contended that the statements of
witnesses by State police were not on record at that time and
– 10 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLPs in limine
without getting into the merits.
8. The trial Court on considering the statements of
the witnesses in detail has found that there is prima facie
material to accept the case of the prosecution regarding
involvement of the accused in the offences for which they are
charge sheeted. The said common orders were challenged by
the co-accused i.e. by accused No.5 and the same is upheld
by this Court in Crl.A.No.828/2024. The said order has
attained finality. It is true that accused No.6 was not a party
in Crl.A.No.827/2024 C/w Crl.A.No.828/2024. But the
records show that before the trial Court, accused Nos.5, 6 and
20 were represented by Counsel Sri Mohammed Tahir himself.
Crl.A.No.767/2024 and Crl.A.No.828/2024 were filed by him
only. But he did not choose to get both matters connected for
disposal. The imputations against accused Nos.5 and 6 are
one and the same. By delaying this appeal and at this stage
by seeking a favourable order, there is an attempt to nullify
the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.828/2024 and the
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl) No.17214/2024.
9. An attempt was made to contend that the above
said special leave petitions were rejected in limine and not on
– 11 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
merits. In S.L.P.(Crl) No.848/2022, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has said that having examined the records, it was not
persuaded to consider interference in the matter. The copies
of the orders in S.L.P. (Crl.)Nos.848/2022 and 17214/2024
show that they were dismissed on hearing the parties
indicating thereby that the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
examining the records and hearing the parties had dismissed
those matters. Therefore, it is not open to say that they were
dismissed without considering merits.
10. The next contention is that the statements of the
witnesses recorded by the State police were not before this
Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the earlier proceedings.
That is again totally misleading statement. Reading of paras
16, 17 and 21 in the order in Crl.A.No.827/2024 C/w
Crl.A.No.828/2024 makes it clear that the same contention
was urged before this Court and that was negatived. This
Court finds it useful to extract those paragraphs to
demonstrate that Counsel for accused No.6 having urged that
point and despite consideration of the same by this Court,
suppressing the same, is making misleading submissions.
“16. Now the case of accused No.5 Peer Pasha
may be examined. In para 2 of the impugned order, the
Special Court judge has stated that accused Nos.5 and
6 had filed an application for bail and they withdrew it
– 12 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
on 01.04.2021. The reasons for withdrawing the
application are not forthcoming. Anyway the groundurged is that statements of witnesses before two
investigative agencies differ and in this view it cannot be
said that there are no materials to satisfy the
requirement of ‘prima facie true’ in order that bail can
be denied. To put it in other words, the imputations
against accused Nos.5 and 6 found in the statements of
witnesses recorded by the NIA are not there in the
statements recorded by the State police. To examine
this ground the Special Court has referred to the
statements of the witnesses namely Narayana L,
Chinnaswamy N, Sandeepa, Chandsab Pinjar, Mudaseer
Ahamed, Noor Khan and arrived at an opinion that all of
them have implicated accused Nos.5 and 6.
17. In addition the Special Court has referred
to an order passed by this court in Criminal Appeal
567/2021 and connected cases where the submissions
of Mohammed Tahir have been extracted to observe
that all the contentions of accused Nos.5 and 6 are
matters of trial. Reconsideration of these materials
actually do not arise, or even if the materials are
reassessed we have to concur with findings of the
Special Court. Therefore we find it difficult to take adifferent view and consequently Criminal Appeal
828/2024 should fail.
21. Moreover the Special Court has observed that
if there are contradictions in the two sets of statements
of the witnesses, the same may be made use of by the
defence during trial. This is the correct position of law. If
any observation is made by this court in regard to
variations in the statements, it amounts to usurping the
jurisdiction of the trial court which has to appreciate the
evidence. We too have compared the statements of
– 13 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
witnesses given before the State police and the NIA.
The statements before the State police constitute
former statements which can be used by the defence
and if they are confronted the witnesses have the
liberty to give explanations based on which the court
conducting trial has to appreciate evidence. At thisstage the contentions taken by accused 11 to 13 cannot
be considered. The decision as to existence of case
which appears to be prima facie true, has to be taken on
the charge sheet upon which trial is going to be held.
Therefore we do not find merit in this appeal also.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Above observations clearly show that this Court
even examining such statements recorded by the State Police
did not find merit in the contentions regarding the alleged
inconsistencies of the statements of the witnesses before two
Investigating Officers. Hence, the contention that when the
earlier orders of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
were passed the statements of the witnesses recorded by the
State police were not on record is vexatious.
12. The next contention urged is that there are more
than 250 charge sheet witnesses and 138 accused 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 had stalled framing of
the charges and the trial by filing innumerable applications
– 14 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
either for bail or for discharge and all such applications were
rejected by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court.
13. Above discussions show that some of the
co-accused of the appellants challenged the order of this
Court rejecting bail applications before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the orders of
this Court and trial Court. Accused No.6 and some others
have unsuccessfully filed W.P.No.26870/2024 (GM-RES)
before this Court challenging the rejection of their application
for discharge and this Court has dismissed the said petition on
29.04.2025.
14. Admittedly, there are more than 130 accused in
the case. Out of them, 25 are charged for the offences under
UAP Act. Accused No.20 has not disputed filing of earlier bail
application. The records clearly show that the accused have
adopted strategy of filing individual successive applications for
bail or discharge, though they were represented by common
set of lawyers. The course of events show that the accused for
their own benefit, in a calculated manner abusing the process
of Court are exhausting time and resources of the trial Court
by filing innumerable applications and have obstructed the
trial Court from reaching the stage of trial. Now they are
– 15 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
trying to make delay caused by them only as foundation to
seek bail. The delay can be imputed neither to the prosecution
nor to the trial Court but only to the accused themselves.
Such unfair practice is highly deprecable.
15. An attempt was made by Counsel for accused
No.6 to contend that the trial Court, on accused Nos.14, 16
and 18 pleading guilty, has sentenced them to rigorous
imprisonment of seven years for the offences under UAP Act
and accused No.6 stands on the same footing, at the most,
accused No.6 will also be sentenced to seven years
imprisonment and he has already undergone more than half
of the said sentence period, therefore, as per the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb1,
he is entitled to grant of bail.
16. The appellants are facing charges indulging in
terrorists acts, questioning sovereignty of the State by
vandalizing police station duly established by the State and
assaulting the police to prevent them from discharging their
duties. Further their bail applications were rejected finding
material against them and those orders have attained finality.
The writ petition filed for quashing the proceedings and the
1
(2021) 3 SCC 713
– 16 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
applications for their discharge from the offences under UAP
Act have been rejected and charges are framed against them
under the aforesaid Act. In the incident one person has died.
The offence under Section 16 of UAP Act carries punishment
for death/imprisonment for life.
17. Since the Counsel for accused No.6 produced only
the operative portion of order of sentence with regard to
accused Nos.14, 16 and 18, this Court caused to collect the
print out of the orders of conviction and sentence passed by
the trial Court on 08.07.2025 and 23.07.2025. Reading of the
same shows that the trial Court finding remorse on the part of
those accused for their acts and possibility of their
reformation has sentenced them for offences under UAP Act
to rigorous imprisonment of seven years etc. The relevant
portion of the said order is as follows:
“………The mitigating circumstance is that the
offenders voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges and
have expressed deep remorse for their actions,
seeking an opportunity for reform. …………………………
…………………………In this case, the offenders
remorse and their voluntary guilty plea indicate that a
sentence at the minimum level would be proportionate
to the crime committed…….”
(Emphasis supplied)
– 17 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
18. As the appellants have not pleaded guilty nor
showed any remorse, under the circumstances and having
regard to the punishment prescribed, at this stage, it is
premature to say or prejudge that they will be sentenced to
seven years imprisonment only or to seek parity with accused
Nos.14, 16 and 18. Hence, the judgment in Najeeb‘s case
cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case.
In fact in para 15 of the judgment in Najeeb‘s case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that if the offender is
likely to risk the society, the Court has to decide whether
individual ought to be released pending trial or not. The said
observation reads as follows:
15. …………………………. However, owing to the
practicalities of real life where to secure an effective
trial and to ameliorate the risk to the society in case a
potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the
Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual
ought to be released pending trial or not………”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
by no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded that the trial
Court has committed any perversity or illegality in exercising
its discretion to reject the bail applications of the appellants.
Suffice it to say that the other judgments relied on by Counsel
for the appellants cannot be justifiably applied to advance
– 18 –
CRL.A No.767/2024
C/w CRL.A No.34/2024
their contentions. The appeals deserve no merits. Hence the
following:
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
Pending IAs stood disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGESd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGEKSR