The Trial court in Bengaluru has granted bail to three individuals accused of chanting “Pakistan Zindabad” at the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Vidhana Soudha, during the aftermath of a Rajya Sabha election victory. The accused were required to post a bond of Rs 1 lakh each and comply with conditions including a ban on international travel and mandatory court attendance.
KARNATAKA: On 15th March, The Trial Court in Bengaluru granted bail to three individuals in a case for allegedly chanting pro-Pakistan slogans at the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Vidhana Soudha. The incident reportedly occurred in the aftermath of Congress Party candidate Syed Naseer Hussain’s win in the Rajya Sabha elections.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Adjourns K Kavitha’s Plea Against ED Summons in Delhi Excise Policy Case
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) V Vijith reviewed the bail pleas of the accused: Mohammad Iltaz from Kishanganj, Mohammad Shafi Nashipudi, and DS Munawar Ahmed. To secure their release, each accused is required to post a Rs 1 lakh bond and provide two sureties.
Under the terms of their bail, the accused was banned from international travel and must ensure regular attendance at court hearings. They are further instructed to abstain from any criminal activities.
Background
The controversy sparked during the Rajya Sabha election period held at Vidhana Soudha, where the three men were accused of shouting “Pakistan Zindabad” in celebration of the INC candidate’s victory, leading to their arrest and the initiation of a criminal case by the Vidhana Soudha Police.
READ ALSO: 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots | Supreme Court Seeks CBI Reply on Ex-Councillor’s Furlough Plea
The defense for the accused argued that the police had neglected to issue a prior notice as directed by Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), leading to questions about the procedural validity of their arrest. In addition, the court was informed that the alleged slogan chanting was being analyzed by the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain its authenticity.
Section 41 CrPC
Section 41(1)(a): Empowers police officers to arrest a person without a warrant when a cognizable offense is committed by a person in the presence of police.
Provides for arrest by police on receiving a reasonable complaint/information or has reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence having been committed, which is punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years, or which may be extended to 7 years if the given set of conditions are satisfied.
The additional conditions for such arrest as per Section 41(1)(b)(i) require the police officer to have reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that the said offence has been committed. The Code of Criminal Procedure Sec 41(1)(b)(ii) gives additional set of conditions satisfying the police officer regarding necessity of arrest on the following conditions:
- To prevent further offence For proper investigation
- To prevent tampering with evidence
- To prevent inducement/threat/promise to anyone related dissuading from disclosing facts
When presence before the Court cannot be ensured unless the person is arrested In any case, the police have to record reasons in writing for not making an arrest, if such an arrest is not required.
In addition to the above, Section 41(1)aa) of CrPC further provides that arrest may be made if police have reason to believe or if they received credible information of a cognizable offence with three years of punishment or more than 7 years or the death penalty or imprisonment for life.
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar Guidelines For Arrest of An Accused
The Supreme Court of India, in Paragraph 13 of its judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, issued directions to prevent unnecessary arrests by police officers and unwarranted detention authorised by magistrates. The Court provided the following guidelines as Arnesh Kumar Guidelines:
- State Governments must instruct their police officers not to automatically arrest someone when a case is registered under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Arrest should only be considered if the situation aligns with the criteria outlined in section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- All police officers should have a checklist containing specific clauses mentioned in Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
- When producing the accused before the magistrate for further detention, the police officer should submit the checklist along with reasons and evidence justifying the arrest.
- Magistrates, when authorising further detention, should rely on the report provided by the police officer. The magistrate should only approve continued detention after recording the reasons furnished in the police report and being satisfied with them.
- The decision not to arrest an accused individual should be communicated to the magistrate within two weeks from the initiation of the case. The Superintendent of Police can extend this timeframe, with recorded reasons.
- The accused person should be served with a Notice of Appearance according to Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure within two weeks from the case’s initiation. This time frame can be extended by the Superintendent of Police with written reasons.
- Failure to follow these directions could result in the police officer being held in contempt of court by the appropriate High Court.
- Judicial Magistrates who authorise detention without recording reasons may face departmental proceedings initiated by the High Court.
Considering these factors, ACMM V Vijith decided to grant bail to the accused, finding a prima facie case that supported their request for temporary release.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: ‘NEET-MDS 2024’ Exam Date Upheld, Internship Cut-off Extended
