The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to grant bail to Afzal Basha, one of the accused in the 2020 DJ Halli police station violence case, holding that there was sufficient material at this stage to believe his involvement in serious offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed Basha’s appeal challenging the trial court’s earlier refusal to release him on bail. The court was not persuaded by arguments of prolonged custody or parity with other accused.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Caveat Lapses at Board of Revenue, Issues Fairness Guidelines
Background of the Case
The case traces back to the night of 11 August 2020, when violence broke out near the DJ Halli Police Station in Bengaluru following social media posts that triggered religious tensions.
According to the prosecution, a complaint alleging offensive remarks against Prophet Mohammed led to the registration of an FIR. Despite the police having already acted, a large crowd gathered at the station, demanding immediate action and custody of the accused.
What began as a protest soon escalated. The crowd allegedly swelled to nearly 1,500 people, stormed the police station, attacked police personnel, damaged public property, and set fire to dozens of government vehicles.
The National Investigation Agency later took over the probe. Afzal Basha was charge-sheeted as Accused No. 5, along with over 140 others, for offences under UAPA, IPC, and laws relating to damage of public property.
Basha’s counsel argued that his client had been in judicial custody for nearly five years without the trial commencing. It was contended that his name did not appear in the original FIR and that several co-accused had already been granted bail.
The defence also cited the medical condition of Basha’s mother, claiming she was suffering from cancer and depended solely on him.
Opposing the plea, the NIA said the allegations against Basha were grave and distinct. The prosecution argued that he played an active role in mobilising the mob, instigating violence, and damaging the police station. Delay in trial, it was submitted, was largely due to repeated applications and tactics adopted by the accused themselves.
Read also:- Jharkhand High Court Orders Eviction from RIMS Land, Directs 72-Hour Clearance of Illegal Encroachments
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, the High Court noted that absence of an accused’s name in the FIR is not decisive at the bail stage. “An FIR is not an encyclopedia,” the Bench observed, stressing that later evidence must also be assessed.
The court referred to witness statements, call detail records, and forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile phone. These materials, the Bench said, prima facie showed Basha’s presence at the police station and his communication with other accused during the incident.
On the issue of delay, the judges were categorical. They noted that multiple applications filed one after another by different accused had stalled progress in the case. “The accused cannot take advantage of a delay that they themselves have caused,” the court remarked.
The plea for parity was also rejected. The Bench pointed out that many of the accused released on bail were not facing charges under UAPA, making comparison inappropriate.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Slams UP Govt for Invoking ₹19 Cr Bank Guarantees in Long-Pending Instakart Tax
As for the medical ground, the court found that Basha’s mother was living with other family members and was not solely dependent on him.
The Decision
Concluding that there was prima facie material linking Afzal Basha to acts of violence, arson, and obstruction of police duty, the High Court held that the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied.
The Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s order rejecting bail, stating that no exceptional circumstances were made out to justify release at this stage.
Case Title: Afzal Basha vs National Investigation Agency
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Bail under UAPA)
Decision Date: 2 December 2025
