BENGALURU: Justice John Michael Cunha of the Karnataka prime court docket had declined to seem into CCTV pictures of the cafe assault while listening to the bail petition of the top accused, Mohammed Nalapad Haris.
An afternoon sooner than granting bail to Nalapad, the pass judgement on on Wednesday stated CCTV pictures positioned sooner than him by way of the prosecution is not required while deciding a bail petition.
Observing that the case on hand is like some other case, the pass judgement on famous that the court docket takes up many IPC Section 307 (attempt to homicide) circumstances and the one rationale to be followed is that very same remedy has to be ensured in all. Nalapad and his pals have been arrested for allegedly attacking a adolescence, Vidvat L, in a UB City cafe on February 17.
It is also recalled that Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar of the prime court docket, while rejecting an earlier bail petition of Nalapad, had cited CCTV pictures and stated: “The manner he and his men attacked and injured (Vidvat) brutally displays the exhibition of muscle energy. The incontrovertible fact that nobody in restaurant came to the rescue of the injured may be one issue which can't be neglected. The whole incident appears to be frightening and terrifying. Therefore, if a person who wields such an authority and mighty energy is launched on bail, he’s positive to make use of his position to destroy the evidence.”
‘Was just a battle’
During Wednesday’s listening to, senior suggest B V Acharya argued that although all the evidence positioned sooner than HC by way of the prosecution is accredited at its face value, the one allegation towards Nalapad used to be that he allegedly slapped the sufferer on two occasions and kicked him as soon as. Acharya additional contended that the case on hand used to be just a battle that used to be induced on the spur of the moment and there used to be no pre-meditation to kill the sufferer, and invoking of IPC segment 307 used to be uncalled for.
According to Acharya, the very filing of the chargesheet on May 7 is tantamount to changed circumstances. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, he contended that when of entirety of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, an accused must get bail. Granting of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, he added.
‘A unique case’
On the opposite hand, special public prosecutor M S Shyam Sundar claimed that CCTV pictures indicated Nalapad had attacked the sufferer on several occasions. According to him, the very act of Nalapad and his gang following the sufferer to Mallya Hospital put the case on a special footing. He additionally claimed that none of those provide on the spot when Vidvat used to be thrashed had come to his rescue, including he suffered critical facial accidents excluding injury to eight ribs.
The prosecutor additionally read out the observations made by way of the prime court docket within the earlier bail petition where the pass judgement on had remarked that the “whole incident appears to be frightening and terrifying” while looking for some sort of protection to witnesses, which come with two ladies.
An afternoon sooner than granting bail to Nalapad, the pass judgement on on Wednesday stated CCTV pictures positioned sooner than him by way of the prosecution is not required while deciding a bail petition.
Observing that the case on hand is like some other case, the pass judgement on famous that the court docket takes up many IPC Section 307 (attempt to homicide) circumstances and the one rationale to be followed is that very same remedy has to be ensured in all. Nalapad and his pals have been arrested for allegedly attacking a adolescence, Vidvat L, in a UB City cafe on February 17.
It is also recalled that Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar of the prime court docket, while rejecting an earlier bail petition of Nalapad, had cited CCTV pictures and stated: “The manner he and his men attacked and injured (Vidvat) brutally displays the exhibition of muscle energy. The incontrovertible fact that nobody in restaurant came to the rescue of the injured may be one issue which can't be neglected. The whole incident appears to be frightening and terrifying. Therefore, if a person who wields such an authority and mighty energy is launched on bail, he’s positive to make use of his position to destroy the evidence.”
‘Was just a battle’
During Wednesday’s listening to, senior suggest B V Acharya argued that although all the evidence positioned sooner than HC by way of the prosecution is accredited at its face value, the one allegation towards Nalapad used to be that he allegedly slapped the sufferer on two occasions and kicked him as soon as. Acharya additional contended that the case on hand used to be just a battle that used to be induced on the spur of the moment and there used to be no pre-meditation to kill the sufferer, and invoking of IPC segment 307 used to be uncalled for.
According to Acharya, the very filing of the chargesheet on May 7 is tantamount to changed circumstances. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, he contended that when of entirety of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, an accused must get bail. Granting of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, he added.
‘A unique case’
On the opposite hand, special public prosecutor M S Shyam Sundar claimed that CCTV pictures indicated Nalapad had attacked the sufferer on several occasions. According to him, the very act of Nalapad and his gang following the sufferer to Mallya Hospital put the case on a special footing. He additionally claimed that none of those provide on the spot when Vidvat used to be thrashed had come to his rescue, including he suffered critical facial accidents excluding injury to eight ribs.
The prosecutor additionally read out the observations made by way of the prime court docket within the earlier bail petition where the pass judgement on had remarked that the “whole incident appears to be frightening and terrifying” while looking for some sort of protection to witnesses, which come with two ladies.
CCTV footage not required for bail: HC
![CCTV footage not required for bail: HC]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
June 15, 2018
Rating:
