K’taka HC Refuses Bail To Nalapad Haris, Saying CCTV Footage Shows Attack Was Horrifying & Terrifying [Read Order]

K’taka HC Refuses Bail To Nalapad Haris, Saying CCTV Footage Shows Attack Was Horrifying & Terrifying [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday refused to grant bail to Mohammed Nalapad Haris, son of Congress MLA NA Haris, who is in judicial custody for allegedly assaulting Vidvat Loganathan, son of a businessman, and said from the CCTV footage, the attack appears horrifying and terrifying.

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar rejected the bail plea of Nalapad saying a person who wields such authority and mighty power, if released on bail, is sure to use his position to destroy the evidence.

“Insofar as the position of the petitioner in a society is concerned, he is the son of a sitting MLA and wields power. This can be very much made out after watching footages of CCTV coverage.

“The way he and his men attacked the injured brutally shows the exhibition of wielding muscle power. The fact that nobody in the restaurant came to the rescue of the injured is also one factor which cannot be ignored. The entire incident appears to be horrifying and terrifying. Therefore, if a person who wields such authority and mighty power if released on bail, it is sure that he uses his position to destroy the evidence,” said the court.

“…there are prima facie materials to connect the petitioner with non-bailable offences such a Section 326 or Section 307 of IPC. More than that, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Amarmani Tripathi case, the character, behaviour means position and standing of the accused are very important to be considered. It is so that his misuses his position as he has done already and to intimate the witnesses and tamper with evidence.

“The CCTV footage shows the horrendous atmosphere created when the incident took place and there is no guarantee that such people will remain quiet without tampering with evidence once they come out of jail, hence I come to conclusion that this petition deserves dismissal. Petition is dismissed. Bail rejected,” ordered Justice Kumar.

The 28-year-old Nalapad and others were booked and jailed on February 21 for allegedly assaulting Vidvat in a restaurant at UB City in Bengaluru on the night of February 17.

Nalapad was the general secretary of the Bengaluru District Youth Congress but was suspended after the incident.  He surrendered before the Cubbon Park Police in Bengaluru on February 19.

A complaint was registered on the statement of Vidvat’s friend Praveen who said Nalapad picked up an argument as Vidvat could not fold his leg which was cast in a plaster following a fracture. This irked Nalapad and assaulted Vidvat with ice buckets, bottles etc and hurled punches and abuses till he lost consciousness and was raced to Mallya hospital.

The accused then followed him to the hospital and extended life threats to the victim.

A local court had refused him bail on March 2.

During the hearing before the high court, Nalapad had argued that a drunken brawl in a bar and restaurant has unnecessarily been given a hype by the media, both print and electronic, just because he happens to be a son of sitting MLA.

He also argued that except the offence under Section 326 IPC, all other offences were bailable and even Section 326 is not attracted since in the first information report, given by Praveen Venkatachalaiah (Vidvat’s friend), it is written that Vidvat was hit with bottles and jugs. According to him, bottle is not a deadly weapon; neither a jug too.

He also relied on Vidvat’s discharge summary which showed that all his vital statistics were normal when he arrived at the hospital.

While dismissing his bail plea, the court cited Supreme Court verdict in Neeru Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2016 wherein it was held that “We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the Society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilized Society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the Society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the Society and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus…”

Read the Order Here