(Representative image)

BENGALURU: Justice John Michael Cunha of the Karnataka high court had declined to look into CCTV footage of the cafe attack while hearing the bail petition of the prime accused, Mohammed Nalapad Haris .

A day before granting bail to Nalapad, the judge on Wednesday said CCTV footage placed before him by the prosecution is not required while deciding a bail petition.

Observing that the case on hand is like any other case, the judge noted that the court takes up many IPC Section 307 (attempt to murder) cases and the only rationale to be followed is that same treatment has to be ensured in all. Nalapad and his associates were arrested for allegedly attacking a youth, Vidvat L, in a UB City cafe on February 17.

It may be recalled that Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar of the high court, while rejecting an earlier bail petition of Nalapad, had cited CCTV footage and said: “The way he and his men attacked and injured (Vidvat) brutally shows the exhibition of muscle power. The fact that no one in restaurant came to the rescue of the injured is also one factor which cannot be ignored. The entire incident appears to be horrifying and terrifying. Therefore, if a person who wields such an authority and mighty power is released on bail, he’s sure to use his position to destroy the evidence.”

‘Was just a fight’

During Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocate B V Acharya argued that even if the entire evidence placed before HC by the prosecution is accepted at its face value, the only allegation against Nalapad was that he allegedly slapped the victim on two occasions and kicked him once. Acharya further contended that the case on hand was just a fight that was triggered at the spur of the moment and there was no pre-meditation to kill the victim, and invoking of IPC section 307 was 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 after completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, an accused should get bail. Granting of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, he added.

‘A different case’

On the other hand, special public prosecutor M S Shyam Sundar claimed that CCTV footage indicated Nalapad had attacked the victim on several occasions. According to him, the very act of Nalapad and his gang following the victim to Mallya Hospital put the case on a different footing. He also claimed that none of those present at the spot when Vidvat was thrashed had come to his rescue, adding he suffered severe facial injuries apart from damage to eight ribs.

The prosecutor also read out the observations made by the high court in the earlier bail petition where the judge had remarked that the “entire incident appears to be horrifying and terrifying” while seeking some sort of protection to witnesses, which include two women.

