Bengaluru, Feb 19: The Supreme Court of India today issued notice to the Karnataka government and others on a plea challenging the grant of bail to former Mayor of Bengaluru Sampath Raj and former Corporator Abdul Raqueeb Zakir in a case related to the East Bengaluru violence on August 12 last year that left four people dead.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy sought a response from Raj and Zakir within three weeks on the plea filed by Congress MLA of Pulikeshinagar Constituency R Akhanda Srinivas Murthy through advocate Amit Pai.
The Karnataka High Court had granted bail to both Raj and Zakir in February this year.
Arguing for Srinivas Murthy, senior advocates Devadatt Kamat and R Basant and advocate Rajesh Inamdar informed the court that though the accused had committed serious offences, they had been released on bail.
Further, they said the reasons for granting bail had not been uploaded and only the operative part of the order had been made available by the High Court.
The petitioner contended that the accused were one of the principal conspirators for the incident, and had been instrumental in mobilising persons to vandalise and burn down his house as also to create a communal situation. In his petition, he claimed that Raj, who lost Assembly polls from the neighbouring C V Raman Nagar Assembly constituency, harboured ill-will due to political reasons. The accused created unrest and a law and order situation on the pretext of an alleged derogatory post by his nephew.
The case has been filed in relation to offences under the IPC, as well as the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Around 3,000 to 4,000 people went on a rampage in August last year, setting ablaze the houses of Pulakeshinagar Congress MLA Srinivasamurthy and his sister over an alleged inflammatory social media post by his nephew.
The mob also torched Devara Jeevanahalli and Kadugondanahalli police stations over suspicion that the nephew was present there.
Comments
Add new comment