Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru was seized of seven connected criminal petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused persons in a mob lynching case. The petitions were filed by Abdul Jabbar, the brother of the deceased Ashraf, described as the next of kin of the deceased, and by the State of Karnataka through Mangaluru Rural Police Station. The accused persons had been arrested in connection with Crime No.37/2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3) and 240 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The incident occurred on 27.04.2025 during a cricket match organized by 'Amazing Friends Konguru, Kulashekara', where the deceased Ashraf allegedly raised the slogan 'Pakistan, Pakistan', after which the accused and others followed and assaulted him, resulting in his death. A complaint was lodged by one Sri Deepak Kumar, leading to registration of FIR and arrest of the accused. The accused filed bail petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. The Sessions Court allowed the bail petitions, passing orders dated 31.05.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.394/2025 and 395/2025, 05.06.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.423/2025 and 442/2025, and 06.06.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.426/2025. Aggrieved by these orders, the next of kin of the deceased and the State filed the present petitions under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (read with Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), praying for cancellation of bail and immediate re-arrest of the accused. The main legal issues raised were whether the non-issuance of notice to the next of kin of the deceased as required by the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India guidelines vitiated the bail orders, whether the Sessions Court erred in granting bail on grounds of parity, absence of name in FIR, and lack of antecedents despite the heinous nature of the offence, and whether the State Government must be directed to formulate a victim compensation scheme for mob lynching. The next of kin argued that no notice was given to them, that the Supreme Court had directed timely notice in bail proceedings for mob lynching victims, and that the State had not formulated an interim compensation scheme. The State also sought cancellation on similar grounds. The accused's arguments were not detailed in the available excerpt. The petitions were heard and reserved on 03.08.2026 and the order was pronounced on 20.08.2026. The available text does not contain the final decision or operative directions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Victim's Right to Notice - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 483(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439(2) - The next of kin of the deceased challenged bail orders for non-issuance of notice to them, relying on Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India; the Court considered whether procedural lapse vitiates the bail orders; no final holding is stated in the available excerpt (Paras 1-4).
B) Criminal Law - Mob Lynching - Victim Compensation - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3), 240 - The next of kin argued that the State Government had not formulated an interim compensation scheme for mob lynching victims as directed by the Supreme Court; the Court was urged to direct formulation of such scheme; no final direction stated in the available excerpt (Paras 3-4).
C) Criminal Procedure - Grounds for Bail in Heinous Offences - Parity and Absence of Antecedents - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 483; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - Petitioners contended that the Sessions Court erred in granting bail solely on parity, absence of name in FIR, and lack of antecedents given heinous nature; the Court's consideration is not fully available (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-issuance of notice to the next of kin of the deceased in bail proceedings under Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India vitiates the bail order; whether the Sessions Court erred in granting bail on grounds of parity, absence of name in FIR, and lack of previous antecedents given the heinous nature of the crime; whether the State Government must formulate an interim compensation scheme for mob lynching victims.
Law Points
- Victims' next of kin entitled to notice in bail proceedings under Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines
- bail cancellation may be sought for procedural lapses
- parity cannot be sole ground for bail in heinous offences
- State must formulate victim compensation scheme for mob lynching
- offences under BNS and BNSS
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (08) 48
CRL.P No.10339/2025 c/w CRL.P No.10314/2025, CRL.P No.10321/2025, CRL.P No.15550/2025, CRL.P No.16275/2025, CRL.P No.16338/2025, CRL.P No.16367/2025
Cliton Rozario; Maitreyi Krishnan; B.N. Jagadeesha; Ranjith Kumar; Aruna Shyam; Suyog Herele E; Renspre Prithesh D’Souza; M.R. Balakrishna; Ashwin Joyston Kutinha; V.R. Balaraj
Abdul Jabbar; State of Karnataka
Sachin; Rahul; Deekshith; Adarsh; Sandeep Basavarajappa Haveri; State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petitions seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to accused persons in a mob lynching murder case.
Remedy Sought
Cancellation of bail orders passed by the Sessions Court, immediate re-arrest of the accused, and directions to the State Government to formulate a victim compensation scheme and grant interim compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.
Filing Reason
The Sessions Court granted bail to the accused despite the heinous nature of the crime and without issuing notice to the next of kin of the deceased as required under Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines, and without considering the absence of a victim compensation scheme.
Previous Decisions
The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, allowed regular bail applications of the accused by orders dated 31.05.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.394/2025 and 395/2025, 05.06.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.423/2025 and 442/2025, and 06.06.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.426/2025.
Issues
Whether non-issuance of notice to the next of kin of the deceased in bail proceedings under Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India vitiates the bail order.
Whether the Sessions Court erred in granting bail on grounds of parity, absence of name in FIR, and lack of previous antecedents given the heinous nature of the offence.
Whether the State Government must be directed to formulate an interim compensation scheme for mob lynching victims.
Submissions/Arguments
The next of kin of the deceased argued that as per Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, victims or next of kin in mob lynching cases must be given timely notice of bail proceedings, and failure to issue such notice vitiated the bail orders.
The State Government had not formulated any interim compensation scheme for mob lynching victims, and the Court should direct the State to formulate such a scheme and provide compensation to the next of kin.
The crimes were heinous in nature, and the Sessions Court ought not to have granted bail solely on parity with other co-accused, or on the ground that the accused's name was not initially in the FIR but was implicated later, or on the ground that the accused had no previous antecedents.
Due to procedural lapse, the bail orders should be set aside and the accused directed to surrender.
The State also sought cancellation of bail on similar grounds as the next of kin.
Judgment Excerpts
The brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions are that on 27.04.2025 in a cricket match organized by the ‘Amazing Friends Konguru, Kulashekara’, the deceased-Ashraf came by raising the slogan ‘Pakistan, Pakistan’. The accused and other people followed the deceased-Ashraf and assaulted him resulting in his death.
as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, the victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of mob lynching shall be given timely notice of any Court proceedings and the same shall be entitled to be heard at the trial in respect of applications such as bail, discharge, release and parole filed by the accused persons.
Procedural History
On 27.04.2025, an incident occurred at a cricket match in which the deceased Ashraf was allegedly assaulted and died. A complaint was filed by Sri Deepak Kumar, and the police registered FIR in Crime No.37/2025 for offences under Sections 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3) and 240 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The accused filed bail petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. The Sessions Court allowed the bail petitions by orders dated 31.05.2025, 05.06.2025 and 06.06.2025. Aggrieved, the next of kin of the deceased and the State filed the present petitions under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (read with Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking cancellation of bail. The petitions were heard and reserved on 03.08.2026 and the order was pronounced on 20.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 103(2), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3), 240
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 483(1)(b), 483(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439(1)(b), 439(2)
