Bengaluru: Nalapad’s advocates are studying the order of the lower court rejecting bail, to present a stronger case for bail before the high court. It is learnt that renowned criminal lawyer and senior advocate C.V. Nagesh, may appear for Nalapad before the high court on Monday.
The chances of Mohammed Nalapad Haris seeking bail in the Farzi Café assault case got extended by a few more days, as his advocates will be filing the bail petition before the High Court only on Monday.
Nalapad, son of Shantinagar MLA N.A. Haris, and his six accomplices are currently lodged in Central Prison at Parappana Agrahara for allegedly assaulting Vidwath Loganathan, son of a businessman, on February 17. When lower court on Friday rejected bail for Nalapad and the other accused, the advocates for Nalapad had said that they will move High Court on Saturday for bail.
However, with Saturday’s deadline for filing fresh cases being 12.30 pm, none of Nalapad’s advocates didn’t do so within the stipulated time and are expected to do it on Monday. Even if the petition is filed on Monday, the chances of it being heard on that day itself are slim. It is likely to be listed for hearing on Tuesday or even Wednesday, unless Nalapad’s advocates successfully press for early hearing. It is learnt that Nalapad's advocates are studying the order of the lower court rejecting bail, to present a stronger case before the high court.
It was senior advocate Tomy Sebastian who had argued for bail for Nalapad before the Sessions court. However, it is also learnt that another renowned criminal lawyer and senior advocate C.V. Nagesh, may appear for Nalapad before the high court. Meanwhile, advocate Shyamsundar M.S., who was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in the case, has indicated that he will continue in the role of the government pleader in the High Court. The Sessions court while rejecting Nalapad’s bail, had observed, "By considering the nature of accusations against petitioner (Nalapad), nature of evidence in support thereof, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, pendency of further investigation, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and the larger interest of the public and State, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail at least till the completion of investigation."
The lower court had also taken into the account the seriousness of the offence, as Vidwath was attacked with bottles, ice bucket and brass knuckles, while rejecting bail to the accused.
