The Karnataka High Court on December 2, 2025 dismissed the criminal appeal filed by accused No.5, Afzal Basha, challenging the rejection of his bail application in the DJ Halli police station violence case, holding that there was prima facie material showing his involvement in offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and that the prolonged delay in trial was attributable to the accused themselves.
Case Details
- Case Title: Afzal Basha v. National Investigation Agency
- Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Bench: Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T
- Date of Judgment: December 2, 2025
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1425 of 2025 (21(NIA))
- Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:50025-DB
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from the rejection of bail granted by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, who is the designated Special Court for trial of NIA cases, in Special Case No.152 of 2021.
Afzal Basha, arrayed as accused No.5, has been in judicial custody for nearly five years in connection with the large-scale violence that erupted at DJ Halli police station in Bengaluru on the night of August 11, 2020.
The case stems from communal unrest triggered by a Facebook post allegedly intended to provoke religious sentiments.
According to the prosecution, the unrest escalated rapidly into mob violence involving 800 to 1,500 persons, resulting in arson, vandalism of public property, attacks on police personnel, and the burning of 67 government vehicles inside the police station premises.
Two persons died in police firing, and several police officials sustained injuries.
Charges Invoked Against the Appellant
The National Investigation Agency charge-sheeted Afzal Basha along with 145 others for offences under Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, along with multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including rioting, attempt to murder, arson, criminal conspiracy, and obstruction of public servants, as well as offences under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act.
Against Afzal Basha specifically, the prosecution invoked Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA, Sections 120B, 34 and 149 read with Sections 143, 147, 188, 427, 436 and 353 of the IPC, and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act.
Grounds Urged for Bail
Before the High Court, the appellant contended that he had been falsely implicated and that his name did not appear in the first information report.
He argued that his continued incarceration for nearly five years without commencement of trial violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He further sought parity with co-accused who had been granted bail and urged humanitarian grounds, stating that his mother was suffering from carcinoma and was dependent on him.
Reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, to contend that prolonged incarceration could justify bail even in cases involving UAPA.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The NIA opposed the appeal, asserting that there was ample prima facie material establishing Afzal Basha’s active role in mobilising the mob, instigating violence, and participating in acts of arson at the police station.
It was argued that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA barred the grant of bail once the court was satisfied that the accusations were prima facie true.
The prosecution further submitted that the delay in trial could not be attributed to the State, but was the result of repeated and strategic applications filed by the accused themselves, including multiple bail applications, discharge pleas, writ petitions, and interlocutory proceedings, often filed consecutively by individual accused despite being represented by common counsel.
Court’s Analysis on Prima Facie Case
The Division Bench noted that the occurrence of the incident itself was not disputed. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the Court reiterated that at the stage of bail under UAPA, it is sufficient if the materials disclose reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.
The Court examined the charge-sheet materials, including statements of protected witnesses who were head constables and eyewitnesses present at the DJ Halli police station.
These witnesses specifically attributed to Afzal Basha the role of instigating the mob, obstructing police personnel, pouring petrol on vehicles, and setting them ablaze.
The Bench also referred to call detail records and forensic analysis of the appellant’s mobile phone, which allegedly showed frequent communication with other accused during the incident and the receipt of voice messages exhorting people to gather at the police station and engage in violent acts. The tower location data placed the appellant at or near the scene of occurrence.
Rejecting the argument that absence of the appellant’s name in the FIR was fatal, the Court observed that “the first information report is not an encyclopedia” and that subsequent investigation materials could clearly establish involvement.
Findings on Delay in Trial
A substantial portion of the judgment was devoted to examining the cause of delay in the trial. The High Court undertook a detailed review of the record, including exhaustive tables listing bail applications, interim bail pleas, writ petitions, criminal appeals, discharge applications, and other proceedings filed by the accused since 2020.
The Court found that from 2021 onwards, when the matter was posted for framing of charges, the progress of the trial was repeatedly obstructed due to successive applications filed by the accused, frequent changes of counsel, non-appearance of accused leading to issuance of warrants, and piecemeal litigation strategy.
The Bench concluded that the delay was “strategically engineered” by the accused to later claim violation of Article 21 and seek bail on that ground. It held that an accused cannot take advantage of delay that is self-created.
Rejection of Parity and Medical Grounds
On the plea of parity, the Court noted that the co-accused who were granted bail were not facing charges under the UAPA, and therefore the principle of parity could not be invoked. In contrast, bail applications of similarly situated accused facing UAPA charges had been rejected by the trial court, the High Court, and even the Supreme Court.
Regarding the medical condition of the appellant’s mother, the Court found that the records showed she was residing with her husband and other children, and therefore the claim that she was solely dependent on the appellant was unfounded.
Constitutional Observations by the Court
In a significant constitutional observation, the Court addressed the appellant’s plea of violation of Article 21.
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi, the Bench observed that “the true source of rights is duty” and emphasised that the right to liberty must be balanced against the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution.
The Court specifically referred to the duties to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, promote harmony, safeguard public property, and abjure violence, holding that the allegations against the appellant prima facie disclosed breaches of these duties.
The judgment stated that when an accused is prima facie found to have indulged in vandalism, violence against police, and destruction of public property on communal lines, and has himself delayed the proceedings, he cannot seek the benefit of Article 21 to secure bail.
Final Decision
Holding that the trial court’s order rejecting bail was well-reasoned and legally sound, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and refused to interfere with the impugned order.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1425:2025 (21(NIA))
