Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court will decide the fate of Mohammed Nalapad Haris on Wednesday afternoon when it passes the order on his bail plea. Nalapad, son of Shantinagar MLA N.A. Haris, is lodged at the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison for brutally assaulting 24-year-old Vidwath with his gang. He approached the High Court after the Sessions Court denied him bail.
Senior advocate C.V. Nagesh, appearing for Nalapad, countered the prosecution’s objections to granting bail, saying it is a simple case of 'drunken brawl’ and there is no evidence to prove Nalapad’s direct involvement.
Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar told Mr Nagesh that from the video proof shown to him by the prosecution, it was Nalapad who hit Vidwath first. Mr Nagesh said that he was arguing only on the basis of the complaint and other documents, including the FIR, made available to him. He said that he has not seen the CCTV footage, which could have been morphed.
He submitted that only jugs and glass bottles were used during the brawl and not the knuckle buster as claimed by the prosecution.
On MLA Haris getting access to Vidwath’s medical records and putting them up on his Facebook page, Mr Nagesh submitted that the media had them on March 5, while Haris posted them the next day (March 6).
Mr Nagesh argued that medical records are not confidential as this is not a case of rape, sexual assault or a matter related to matrimonial issue. Special Public Prosecutor Shyamsundar argued that the accused still did not answer how he got hold of the document, maintaining that the doctors were yet to furnish the prosecution the records.
Following allegations that Dr Anand, who allegedly issued the medical records, is closely related to Haris's friend, Mr Nagesh hit out saying that the friend, a senior IPS officer, visited Vidwath and after his intervention, Section 307 (attempt to murder) was included. Also, former deputy chief minister M. Ashok and Investigation Officer are close to Vidwath's influential father, he submitted.
When Mr Nagesh continued with his argument, the judge said, “But for the public attention, I do not see anything special in this case.”