Invoking S.15 UAPA For Acts 'Likely To Strike Terror' Even In Absence Of Intention Justifiable: Karnataka High Court In Police Station Riot Case

The Karnataka High Court has said that if an act is likely to strike terror, then the absence of an intent to strike terror will not make the invocation of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act unjustifiable. A division bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur said,"It would emerge from sub-section (1) of Section 15 that even if the act is "likely to strike terror", the absence of "ïntent to strike terror" will not by itself make the invocation of Section 15 unjustified." It added, "As such the accused cannot limit his arguments to say that he or she lacked the necessary intent to strike terror. In other words, the accused will have to go one step further and demonstrate that his actions, even if lacking any intent, does not carry any likelihood of striking terror in the minds of the people." The court made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a bunch of accused seeking bail in the Bengaluru Riots case of 2020. The petitioners had challenged the order of special court, dismissing their bail applications on the ground that the allegations made against the accused are serious in nature and the overt acts committed by each of them prima facie indicate that they form terrorist acts as defined under Sections 15 and 20 of UAP Act.BackgroundAccording to the police, on August 11 a mob of around 300 people gathered near D.J. Halli Police Station, protesting against an allegedly derogatory comment on Prophet Mohammed, posted by one P. Naveen on his Facebook page. An FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Firdous Pasha, for offences under Section 295-A and 153 of the Indian Penal Code.Despite the registration of the FIR and the best efforts of the police to pacify the crowd, the mob that had gathered outside the Police Station refused to disperse and only increased in numbers. They then proceeded to gather outside the residence of Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy, who is an MLA, from Pulikeshi Nagar constituency and caused extensive damage to his house and property.The mob was then joined by a large number of miscreants from adjoining areas and they began to set fire to police vehicles and attacked police personnel of D.J. Halli and K.G. Halli Police Stations, by throwing stones at the building and attacking them with deadly weapons. Later, the mob resorted to arson and set fire to the basement of the D.J. Halli Police Station building and destroyed Government properties located within the premises of the Police Station.More than 80 police personnel were injured in the violence. The mob also burnt private vehicles and property, caused extensive damage to buildings of private and commercial establishments, and also looted them. A total of 64 criminal cases have been registered so far and investigation is under process. Over 300 people have been arrested in the case. ArgumentsSenior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the accused had argued "Under Section 15(1) of UAP Act, the essential element which requires to be proved is "intention to strike terror" in the mind of people or section of the people; that accusations made against appellants even if taken on their face value do not constitute a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of UAP Act." Hence, contending that grounds raised by the appellant in this regard is to be accepted and based on the conventional tripod test (flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence), without applying the special limitations found under Section 43D(5) of UAP Act, bail applications of appellants will have to be allowed. Further, he submitted that acts of the appellants cannot be read in isolation in the context of the Facebook post made by Naveen whereunder he had posted derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammad by hurting the religious sentiments of Muslim community; the refusal of police to take speedy action on the complaint discloses intention of the persons who had gathered near the police station for insisting the registration of their protest in a peaceful manner against said derogatory post and there was no intention or pre-meditation to inflict violence of any sort. It was added, "Peaceful gathering having assembled to register their protest have subsequently became unruly and same cannot be described as a terrorist act and provisions of Indian Penal Code would encompass the offence committed by the appellants even if any and invocation of the provisions of UAP Act against appellants-1 to 25 smacks of malafides and discriminatory attitude on the part of Investigating Agency." It was also claimed that there was no death which had occurred pursuance to the alleged terrorist acts and even assuming for the moment appellants are convicted, they can be sentenced to minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and maximum imprisonment for life and as such. Therefore, the accused sought that a lenient view be taken and appellants be...

Invoking S.15 UAPA For Acts 'Likely To Strike Terror' Even In Absence Of Intention Justifiable: Karnataka High Court In Police Station Riot Case

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Invoking S.15 UAPA For Acts 'Likely To Strike Terror' Even In Absence Of Intention Justifiable: Karnataka High Court In Police Station Riot Case

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers