MUZAMMIL PASHA Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dtd. 27/9/2021 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases), Bangalore in Special C.C.No.152 of 2021, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- An untoward incident on 11/8/2020, takes place in D.J.Halli Police Station limits, which was on religious lines. A complaint came to be registered in Crime No.195 of 2020 against accused Nos.1 to 5 along with 300 persons for offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 307, 436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506 r/w. Ss. 34 and 149 of the IPC along with Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Distribution and Loss of Property Act, 1981. The police took up investigation on registration of the said complaint and thereafter, on 17/8/2020, added offences punishable under Ss. 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Number of accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody after which Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 21/9/2020, directs registration of a crime by the National Investigating Agency ('NIA' for short) at New Delhi Police Station on the same incident against the accused under the afore-quoted provisions. The NIA further conducted investigation after transfer of the crime from the State authorities in terms of the direction of Government and then filed a charge sheet. In the proceedings i.e., Special C.C.No.152 of 2021 after filing the charge sheet by the NIA, the petitioner/accused No.1 in the said case files an application under Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. for direction to the NIA to produce and furnish statement of charge sheeted witnesses as mentioned in a column therein. This was opposed by the NIA by filing its objections and considering the application and objections, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by accused No.1 for furnishing of documents i.e., statements of charge sheeted witnesses recorded by the Police. It is the rejection of the application that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

(3.) Heard Mr. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.